Kucinich = no shot? Read this; "Is 2008 a 1932 moment?"

[inthebrain]

Something interesting to consider. Recall that before 1932 FDR was considered a little eccentric as well.



Is 2008 a 1932 moment?

The following column by John Zogby as published in the Observer-Dispatch newspaper in Utica, NY.

Is 2008 a 1932 moment
UTICA, New York – At this point in 1931, Franklin Roosevelt did not have a New Deal. He was running against a Hoover presidency and a country that had gone haywire.


The New Deal developed after Roosevelt was elected and was based not on ideology, but on a simple principle that Roosevelt himself underscored. To paraphrase: “I’m not sure what we’re going to do, but we have to try something.”


At this same point in time in 1979, if Ronald Reagan thought that he was going to win the presidency, he was probably the only person in America who thought so. That victory was not assured until the weekend before the election, and again it was based less on ideology and more on the fact that the voters sensed things had gone haywire due to stagflation and the Iranian hostage crisis.


But Reagan took his victory and turned it into a major redefinition of federalism, just as Roosevelt had done 48 years earlier.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1389

[skipos]

1. Kucinich will do as poorly in 2008 as he did in 2004.

Why would he do better? Is he raising a lot more money? Does he have many more donors? Is there any reason to believe he has stonger support? Unscientific online polls don't mean squat, as he did well in those in 2004 too.

[inthebrain]

2. Kucinch is using a different strategy

One simialar to the one FDR used.

It's about going house to house, community to community and venue to venue.

[skipos]

14. He was 6th overall in 2004. Where do you think he will finish in 2008? nt

[baldguy]

6. Why should we bother listening to someone our corporate masters don't like?

After all, they know what's best for the country.

[skipos]

13. Nah, I dislike the idea of Kucinich as president

for many reasons, even though I like his voting record. There is more to being president than being right on most issues. You can convince yourself me and the millions of people who aren't supporting him withhold our support because we are brainwashed by MSM or closet Republicans or whatever.

He and Clinton are my last choices in 08.

[Chulanowa]

39. Now I'm curious...

What "more" in particular?

Is his haircut not Reaganesque enough or something?

[baldguy]

43. He doesn't look "presidential".

Everyone knows a man can't make good decisions & be a real leader when he's funny looking with big ears.

[skipos]

45. See my post below. nt

[skipos]

44. A Kucinich supporter in denial.

You people are just as bad as the Clinton supporters who think she is at the bottom of my 08 list because I am sexist.

When the primaries are over and Kucinich has about 40 delegates like he did in 2004, I can assure you that it is due to many people who, like me, think he would be a mediocre President.

[Chulanowa]

47. But why? That's what I'm asking

Yeah, I'm big on Kucinich, but I could just as easily go for any of our other candidates. Dem = Win, basically. But I want to know why you think he'd be a mediocre president. You say it takes "more" than being right and having good ideas.

So I want to know what more it takes.

[skipos]

48. Why don't you ask me sometime

minus the "Reagan haircut" snark? Then you'll get an answer.

[Chulanowa]

51. I did, the second time.

And got some bullshit about how I'm just as bad as Hillary supporters who think you're sexist.

So now that we're even, third time's the charm. What "more" do you need, in particular? What would make him a mediocre president?

[upi402]

3. If he doesn't win I worry for our republic

This democracy is a glass thread and nobody is doing a damn thing to protect it. Has Senator Clinton, the front runner, demanded clean election reforms?

God help us if she gets it. Stick a fork in the oldest democracy and our age of hegemony.

[mmonk]

4. One day, America will want change.

It would be nice if this were the time.

[KingFlorez]

5. There are just some people who cannot win

I don't have anything against Kucinich, but I just don't see him winning.

[lonestarnot]

11. And that must be the American people.

What you don't have vision? Get with the program!

[99th_Monkey]

17. So what are Primaries for anyway? to pick the best candidate, no?

so i assume you are at least voting for Dennis in primary, no?

[99th_Monkey]

7. Precisely!! This is why I'm constantly reminding myself and others

that this very fact that Dennis has been somehow labled as "unelectable" .. like a big sign people
stick over his face ... that it's this very attitude that drives and self-fulfills the prophecy to
become wa-laa "true", because people then don't take him as seriously and buy into the bogus arguement
that a vote for Kucinich is somehow wasted. WASTED? What the hell are primaries for anyway if not
to cast your best vote for the best candidate and let the chips fall where they will.

Fuck the polls and talking heads, vote Kucinich. :thumbsup:

[1932]

8. Roosevelt was considered eccentric because he tried to write a movie script, invested in crazy

get-rich-quick schemes, and ran a camp for people who couldn't walk before he ran for president, but he was also a former governor, and was never viewed as a long-shot outsider who was super-liberal. The reformers in New York state were never really comfortable with him because they weren't sure he was liberal enough.

[inthebrain]

9. To be "Super Liberal" in those days

didn't really have a sting to it.

FDR had to settle down the population which was more socialistic in nature and thereby left leaning.

[1932]

10. He was considered a moderate in the era of progressives. Progressives were suspicious of him.

His big political stance was changing the size of a barrel of apples to help farmers -- that's how he won reelection as governor of NY.

He won mostly because Hoover was so awful, but also because Hearst was on his side.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[dweller]

15. wow, must suck to be you

and be on a liberal website that supports your right to call a majority of members 'stupid'.

afterall, with the overwhelming stats and info you have supplied to back up your proclamations concerning DK, i certainly wouldn't want to squash your attempt to clarify the intelligence of his supporters while qualifying at the same time your obvious level of integrity. I can only suspect your criteria matches your candidate's reputation as well.

well done.
dp

[MonkeyFunk]

16. The only stats you need

are that he's polling at about 2-3% of Democrats. That's unelectable.

[dweller]

18. forgive me

but i don't need your stats as they just seem to be the numbers you have typed w/out any links or support to back them. Kudos tho for adding the stock talking point of 'unelectability'.

funny thing about that 'unelectable' babble: the only way you can prove it is to not vote for him.
I cancel it out by voting for him. My vote is what makes him electable.

Yours is just trying to prove a negative. Good luck with that.

dp

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I asserted that he's polling at around 2%.

Do you dispute that?

Then argue against me, provide links. But all the polls I've seen show him doing very poorly.

I'm electable, if everybody votes for me. But that's not going to happen.

[dweller]

20. you've also asserted

"I'm electable, if everybody votes for me. But that's not going to happen."

and i will be the first to agree, without any links or backup support or polls. Why argue w/ a person with the gun pointed at his foot?

i see no point in providing you with links to dispute your undocumented assertions.
dp

[MonkeyFunk]

21. so you assert

that Kucinich is doing much better than 2%, but you won't prove it?


Well here's my link:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Now can you dispute my assertion? Or do you want to continue acting like I made it up?

[dweller]

23. do you work for Fauxsnooze?

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 13-14, 2007. N=397 Democratic voters nationwide. MoE ± 5.
(from your link)
otherwise, i won't accuse you of anything.


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=249126

tell me, what is the difference? Which source do you trust?

dp

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Are you daft?

The link I gave listed many, many polls. Most have him at 2%, a handful have him at 4%, but a bunch have him at 1%.

Can you find any poll where he's doing appreciably better than 3%?

How is it fox newsworthy to link to a bunch of polls? How idiotic.

[dweller]

26. no, are you reading impaired?

Fauxsnooze, Gallup, ARG, USA Today ... are consistently questioned here on this site as being untrustworthy. The MSM is suspect in general.

I provided you with a link to a Liberal, long-standing publication with it's own polling. What makes your source superior to mine?

because you say so? How ... idiotic.

dp

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Because "The Nation"

didn't do a poll.

It was an online poll. If you don't know the difference between a real poll and an online poll, you're too ignorant to discuss the subject.

[dweller]

30. and so i'll repeat myself

wow, must suck to be you and be on a liberal website that supports your right to call a majority of members 'stupid' (or in this case a member of that majority, 'ignorant')

afterall, with the overwhelming stats and info you have supplied to back up your proclamations concerning DK, i certainly wouldn't want to squash your attempt to clarify the intelligence of his supporters while qualifying at the same time your obvious level of integrity. I can only suspect your criteria matches your candidate's reputation as well.

well done.
keep up the good work.
dp

[MonkeyFunk]

31. I gave you a link

to a variety of scientific polls that show Kucinich averaging 2-3%.

You, instead, choose to believe online polls as somehow being more accurate.

Believing that the entire world is conspiring against Kucinich doesn't make you more of a liberal. It just makes you gullible.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. And....

you think an online poll is meaningful?

Hey, won the fun-run here, too! But he's still gonna get about 2-3% of the vote.

[dweller]

28. i believe the DU funrun is an accurate reflection

of the support a majority of members have for a candidate. Sorry it's not the MSM selected candidate you are actively supporting.

isn't there another Kucinich thread ongoing you could be slinging poo at? I'm sure you wouldn't want to miss the opportunity.
dp

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Then you're going to be very disappointed

when the primaries start.

If you think every national poll is horribly skewed, but online polls on liberal sites are accurate, you're just setting yourself up for a big letdown.

[dweller]

32. and if you think the MSM polls are good enough for you

and the site you are on is not accurate in gauging where the support of a majority rests in this domain, then you are becoming less intuitive, and more inaccurate and untrustworthy, in proclaiming what lies in the future.

dp

[MonkeyFunk]

33. How much better did Kucinich do in 2004

than the polls indicated?

Here's what you don't get: polling companies have one product to sell: accuracy. Any poll that is terribly inaccurate goes out of business. And ALL the polls agree that Kucinich is at about 2%.

Do you think DK can't commission a poll? Do you think he wouldn't mention the fact that he's doing much better in his own polls than in the published ones?

People who support losing candidates always diss the polls, but the fact is, they are all almost always accurate within their margin of error.

[dweller]

34. don't forget Poll-land!

Polls, like the 2004 exit polls?

Edison Media Research and Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International would be proud of you for your support.

dp

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Answer the question...

how much better did Kucinich do in actual results than he did in polls just before the election?

Stop evading - your claim is that national polls are all rigged. Prove it or shut up and admit you're ignorant about it.

[dweller]

36. bite me

i never claimed national polls were rigged. You are better at putting words in other's mouths rather than defending your own propaganda.

This has nothing to do with 2004, other than what you are dragging into it. You are intent it seems on calling me, as a Kucinich supporter, ignorant. I no longer wish to be subjected to your abuse.

welcome to my ignore list. Good luck convincing others to join you in your losing quest.
dp

[MonkeyFunk]

37. now now.... you're just getting upset

because you can't defend your position, so you're attacking me. It's natural for the feeble-minded.

Now, can you find an example of a poll that was wrong outside its margin of error just before the election?

[MonkeyFunk]

40. What?!

No answer?!

How strange.

[inthebrain]

46. I ws never polled and same for a lot of people on this site

Polls are flawed and get wrong more often than not. The pollls didn't have Kerry as the front runner in 04 heading into Iowa.

Kucinich has some very strong base support heading into the primaries. Not all registerd Dems vote in them.

Kucinich won the Dean for America Poll, Dail Ko's debate Poll (despite other supporters trying to stuff the votes) and yes, the fun run. I suspect that there are a lot of people who plan on voting for this guy but are not vocalizing support.

I don't think the online poll results mean he's the outright winner right now. They do reflect that his support his much higher than you and amnay others suspect.

America doesn't want change alone. They want an entirely new direction.

[dweller]

38. note to self

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
R.W. Emerson


dp

[MattSh]

22. Well, he's got 3 months, maybe 4, to do it then.

To win the Democratic Primary, that is. If he doesn't win that, it just ain't going to happen.

From Wikipedia

February 5, 2008, looks set to be a decisive date, one month before the traditional Super Tuesday, as up to twenty states, with half of the population of the United States among them, are moving to hold their primaries on what is being called Tsunami Tuesday, National Presidential Primary Day, Giga Tuesday, The Unofficial National Primary or Super Duper Tuesday.

If he still had 11 months, I'd give him an outside shot, because things will slide dramatically during that time. Three months? No way.

[Auggie]

41. That was then. Today this country won't elect anything but celebrities

and good old boys.

[riqster]

42. "What's different in 2008?"

A fair few things, in fact. I'll just pick a couple:

<1> We have seen the Center-Right dominated Democratic Party fail to come up with a sufficient plurality to form a solid majority, and the Reeps keep on winning and the country keeps on losing. People voted for change, and the reason Congress's ratings are near single-digit levels is the lack of change, and the namby-pamby, hot-and-cold mentality that contributes to it.

<2> More of the nation is aware of the crisis we are in, and is looking for a real change agent.

Both of these argue for a true Progressive who gets in the face of the powers that be; Kooch is the only candidate to do this consistently, over a period of decades. Whether or not he can win the Nomination and the White House are questions that can only be answered by balloting, and thus at this point irrelevant.

What is relevant at this point? The other purpose of a Primary, which is to influence the direction of the party. Are you sick of the Milquetoast Dems? Vote Kooch. Do you want the troops to come home? Vote Kooch. Do you want somebody who stood up for the voters, and put his life on the line when he did so? Vote Kooch.

A vote for Kucinich is a vote against the wussy-assed status quo in the Dem party, a vote for change, a vote for the Constitution. Whether he wins or loses in your state, it SENDS A MESSAGE, and is worth doing for that reason. A sizable percentage of DK votes will get the attention of the Establishment, and they will be sure to get on board with it: they want those votes, remember.

[windoe]

49. Interesting to read the same old tired meme

'DK is unelectable' over & over & over. If in fact Kuchinich is that unelectable and unimportant, why are people so intent on discrediting him at all?
At least offer other reasons, since most supporters know (and like) his lack of corporate support.

[phantom power]

50. 2008 will not be 1932. 2012 or 2016 might be.