2000 Exit Polls Prove 40/40/20 Analysis - Kucinich Strongest Against Bush

[dpbrown]

Much is being made of the "electability" (directly resulting from money raised among activists) of Dean and Clark, but the fact is that progressives ("lefties") hold the cards this election – they will determine the outcome, one way or the other. Read the basis for this conclusion in History and the Rise of Progressive Electoral Power Make Kucinich a Contender.

Democrats, despite the sway of the power of money driving the nomination process so far, have overshot their bell curve peak to the "right." Democrats are misjudging a "core" that lies further to the "left" than they're willing to admit or that we're allowed to understand - using the rule election analysts call the 40/40/20 rule, it's obvious that the nominee who captures the "Nader" voters along with the real Democratic core will be the only candidate who will beat Bush by greater than the Black Box (and electoral vote shift) margin. That analysis can be found in Where the Votes Are.

What the analysis of progressive power in Democratic politics shows is that not only is Kucinich electable, he's our best chance to beat the unelected fraud and keep him from ever getting his first legitimate term of office.

Amazingly, people who in most other scenarios would consider themselves activists who will fight to the end - to take back the media, for campaign reform, to protect ANWR - seem suddenly and uncharacteristically willing to surrender now and settle so early in the nomination process. Anyone who thinks they resonate with Kucinich should stick with him to the convention - why not stick with the best, the real anti-Bush? Progressives seem to be selling themselves short this time around, willing to throw up their hands and surrender before they've even begun to fight, just like in this short story, The Brainwashed Woman and the New Dawn.

And now, an analysis of the 2000 Election exit polling data confirms what the 40/40/20 analysis determined – Democrats will be strongest running the most progressive candidate they can find.

We start with the source of the exit polling data from VNS, found at:
http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

Summary: This data clearly legitimizes the conclusions made through the 40/40/20 rule to analyze the current electorate, and its likely prospective effect on the 2004 election.

The graphs says, that of the 13157 people polled:

39% self-identified as Democrats.
35% self-identified as Republicans.
27% self-identified as Independents.

(Not far off from the general framework of the 40/40/20 rule.)

Of the "independents":
45% voted for Gore.
47% voted for Bush.

(Roughly half each, as the 40/40/20 analysis determined would be the case.)

However, as it related to Nader:
2% of self-identified Democrats voted for Nader.
1% of self-identified Republicans voted for Nader.
6% of self-identified independents voted for Nader.

If we project these percentages to the 2000 election numbers, they tell us that:

There were 40,560,000 Democratic votes available. (The 40/40/20 analysis used "40 million") 104m X 39%

There were 36,400,000 Republican votes available. (Wow, even weaker than the 40/40/20 analysis projected - again, it used "40 million") 104m X 35%

Nader got 811,200 Democratic votes. 40.56m X 2%
Nader got 364,000 Republican votes. 36.4m X 1%
Nader got 1,684,8000 "independent" votes. 28.08m X 6%

(Not far from his total take of about 3 million in 2000, so it looks right so far)

Luckily, the "vote by ideology" numbers, while not saying the same thing they would be if they were broken down by affiliation, are perfect for analyzing the "bell curve" of each side's vote.

First of all, "moderate" used by a Bush voter means something different than "moderate" used by a Gore voter (as it's seen from the perspective of the candidate who got that persons's vote), so for this analysis each term is seen as being used in relation to the vote cast.

So, projected to the numbers, the total looks like this:

20,800,000 self-identified "liberals"
52,000,000 self-identified "moderates"
30,160,000 self-identified "conservative"

But much more telling is the bell curve in the Gore total:

Gore got 16,640,000 liberal votes.
Gore got 27,040,000 moderate votes.
Gore got 5,127,200 conservative votes.

Nader got 1,248,000 liberal votes.
Nader got 1,040,000 moderate votes.
Nader got 51,272 conservative votes.

In the bell curve analysis following the 40/40/20 rule strictly, Gore got "40 million" core/moderate votes (these would be people who in the above example self-identified as closely related to what they thought the "middle" would be), and then under the 40/40/20 rule (splitting the "20%" between Bush and Gore and then again to form the sides of the bell curve) he was determined to have gotten 5 million votes from people who thought he should be more "conservative" and 5 million from people who thought he should be more "liberal."

Thus the 40/40/20 rule determined the "shape" of the bell curve to be 80% center, and 10% on each side, but the numbers from the exit polling data present an even more shocking conclusion - the bell curve is even flatter and even more sloped to the "left" than the 40/40/20 rule was able to discern!

While the number of self-identified "Democrats" in the exit poll isn't far off the mark from where the 40/40/20 rule proposed it would be (and Bush and Gore both split each other's take, cancelling out each other's affiliation vote), the ideology numbers in the Gore column are really telling.

Fully 35% of Gore's voters identified themselves as to the "left" of the "core" as indicated by self-identification as "liberal" in the question of ideology - relative to vote cast.

The 40/40/20 rule projected that only 5 million, or 10%, of Gore's take voted for him wishing he were more "liberal or populist."

Only 55% of Gore's voters equated themselves with the "core" if by that is meant "moderate" (again, relative to vote cast).

But in the 40/40/20 rule analysis, the "core" or "center" of the bell curve was worth 80% - the bell curve is clearly much flatter than the 40/40/20 analysis alone was able to pick up.

Only, and most importantly, in the tally of the "conservatives" was the 40/40/20 analysis practically spot on. Exit polls show that about 5 million voted for Gore wishing he were more "conservative" and that's almost exactly what the 40/40/20 analysis predicted would be the case.

The 40/40/20 analysis, determining Kucinich as the strongest candidate, supposed that Kucinich would get all Nader's voters.

But from the above numbers, let's shave off the "conservatives" for Nader - if Kucinich takes the 2,228,000 "liberal" and "moderate" Nader voters (remember, the 40/40/20 analysis said 3 million), then Kucinich is almost exactly where the analysis said he'd be.

And the exit polling numbers put 5.1 million votes into the "conservative voted for Gore" pile - these are the votes that people say are the "at-risk" voters who wished Gore were more "conservative."

So Kucinich turns out to be almost exactly where the 40/40/20 rule analysis said he'd be - gaining about 3 million (exit poll = 2.3 million), and making the battle with Bush entirely a battle for 5 million previous Gore voters (exit poll = 5.1 million).

All-in-all, this data provides an explicit proof of the conclusions from the 40/40/20 rule analysis:

1. The "progressive" bell curve is flatter and more sloped to the "left" than the DLC and the "centrist conservative" Democratic candidates want us to believe, and

2. Kucinich is still the candidate positioned best to pick up Nader's votes and therefore is the ONLY candidate who can make the fight against Bush entirely a battle for 5 million previous Gore voters - not needing ANY previous Bush voters to beat Bush decisively.

Want to win? Nominate Kucinich.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[BobbyJay]

1. huh?

I like rice.

[LWolf]

2. I'm there.

Thanks for putting this all together, Dan. I will make use of it!

[CMT]

3. I have no doubt

that if DK is nominated he could beat Bush.

[dpbrown]

4. By the greatest margin, with most of the Nader vote, as well

So now people can follow their head, as well as their heart, to Kucinich.

[helleborient]

6. Appeal to our heads with real statistical analysis..and reference to real

published articles.

This is a great vanity piece, though.

[dpbrown]

11. Emotional, or demagogic, appeal doesn't trump logic

It's not a vanity piece, it's an analysis.

If you'd like to challenge the logic, feel free. Otherwise, you're not winning your candidate any support by tossing slights about with nothing to back them up.

If I understand your rationale, you're saying that if this were a "real" analysis, someone would have published it in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or something.

I'm here to tell you that even "regular" people are capable of doing analysis.

For example, I'd love to see yours.

I promise not to berate you because you didn't win the Nobel Prize first before you dared to formulate a logical thought.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[YNGW]

12. OK

>If you'd like to challenge the logic, feel free.

OK, here's the cold, hard facts. DK is currently polling around 2% and it looks very unlikely he'll get the nomination. Unless he can win the party nomination, everything else is moot. Don't tell me DK can win the presidency when he can't even win his own party's nomination. That's like saying a football team can win the Super Bowl when they didn't even make the playoffs.

[redqueen]

15. Bad analogy

Football teams don't play well or not based on what the media communicates about them to the other team / fans.

Football teams have other factors to contend with, but a corporate-controlled media blacking out their message so that hardly anyone knows who they are is not one of them.

I know a lot of Dean's fans like to pretend that the media is not why he does so well, and that the media is not why Kucinich does so poorly. But that's an opinion.

So, if teams were prevented from scoring touchdowns because the media decided it was more important to talk about the date they went on than what a great player they were in the last game, then yes... in this scenario, there is a very good chance that a football team that could have won the superbowl might not make it to the playoffs.

[YNGW]

16. Good analogy

So, it's all the lack of media attention.

Nope, you DK supporters seem to have a lot in common with a football team who didn't make the playoffs; both of you are full of excuses.

But, it really doesn't matter, because in a matter of a few months when DK doesn't get the nomination, all this statistical analysis (?) will be even more irrelevant than it is now.

[redqueen]

17. LOL

Not exactly true, but go ahead. Makes it easier to believe what you want to, right?

And do you you read palms? Tarot cards? Got a crystal ball? Or do you just pretend to be psychic so you can stifle any debate about candidates by declaring the outcome ahead of time?

I mean, I can see where it would make the problem of dealing with the cognitive dissonance easier, but is that really a good thing? I don't think so.

[YNGW]

19. LOL

Oh, alright!! DK stands a chance. (snicker) (snicker)

Give me a call after the nominee has been selected. I'll have some questions about DK you could clarify for me at that time.

[dpbrown]

20. For every "Zogby" there is another indicator that counters it

The supporters of other candidates put great emphasis on the "national" polls to put Kucinich out of contention - but even according to those polls, Lieberman should be the one in the bottom third, not Kucinich.

Kucinich's strong second place kept Dean from the MoveOn.org endorsement, and it kept Dean from the Central California Democratic Party's endorsement.

Kucinich's strong showing on website hits as tracked at Alexa.com also belie his supposed last place status.

And if I understand correctly, Kucinich may be near Clark in fundraising? (Don't hold me to this one, I haven't been keeping careful track)

Anyway, the point is going to be, as you correctly point out, how Kucinich does in the primaries and caucuses.

But meanwhile, anyone for whom his positions resonate, or who's interested in creating a strong, progressive Democratic Party, should strongly support Kucinich all the way.

And the logic of both the 40/40/20 rule and under the 2000 exit poll numbers still seems to be sound - there are only about 5 million "conservative" independent voters at risk, and with the Nader voters in the Democratic nominee's pocket, the race becomes all about former Gore voters, and that's about as strong a position to have going up against Bush as you're ever going to get.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[YNGW]

22. Stick with it.

I wouldn't expect a DK supporter to do anything other than back his candidate. But, don't (like some others have) try to lay it off on not enough media coverage or some other excuse. I'm not interested in candidates who make excuses for why they are an "unknown". It's up to them to become "known" even if everything else is against them. Someone who's claims they're smart enough to be president should know how to overcome the obstacles they individually encounter, whatever they may be and however high they may be set. If DK doesn't win the nomination, the fault of not doing so can only be laid at the feet of the candidate himself, and that's true of all the candidates who don't win.

[dpbrown]

23. This is a thread about something other than polling

So it would appear that I'm sticking with the logic of the strength of Kucinich as the obvious standardbearer for the Democratic Party, given the incredible strength of the progressive leaning to the Gore bell curve.

The truth is that Kucinich is a candidate with a history of beating Republican incumbents, and he's got a history of sticking to his guns and winning fights for real people.

That's the person who should be helping to reshape the Democratic Party to take back the nation from the BFEE.

We should reject the blow-dried facsimiles offered up in his stead.

Kucinich supporters are made, not born.

No one got to this point because they were a Kucinich supporter.

The only poll that matters is the one on election day.

[YNGW]

24. The only poll that matters is the one on election day.

Exactly.

No blame. No excuses.

[dpbrown]

25. That doesn't mean people should "settle" early on other than issues

The attractiveness of a candidate should be measured by how he or she will extend and promote the core principles that make Democrats different from Republicans.

To the extent that a candidate convinces the electorate that something else matters more - "electability" or "moneymaking" or attractiveness to Republicans - the process is corrupted and in need of fundamental change.

But as long as there is logic to support the candidacy of the better candidate, showing clearly that more power resides in the progressive side of the Democratic spectrum, then more people ought to make the switch to the more powerful and compelling candidate against the BFEE.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[karlschneider]

21. Yeah, in 46 precincts. You can't be serious...

:eyes:

[dpbrown]

26. Could you show a logical rationale other than demagoguery for this?

Your "46 precincts" statement is unsupportable.

There are more Democrats than Republicans, and there are more progressive Democrats than conservative ones.

Kucinich is the only candidate who can claim anything like a sweep of former Nader voters, therefore he's the only candidate who can go up against Bush needing only former Gore voters to win (although he'll obviously get plenty of former Bush voters as well).

Every other candidate will put the Democrats in a position of having to betray core Democratic Party principles in order to cater to Republican voters.

This is a recipe for the death of the Democratic Party - in fact, that's just about what Dean already did in Vermont - turn the Democratic Party from a powerful force to a pathetic niche party of conservatives posing as "centrists" who somehow fostered the astronomical growth of both the "progressives" and the Republicans until they managed to push the Democrats out of power. Vermont is now governed by a Republican and no elected position ever held by Dean is held by a Democrat today.

This isn't what I want nationally, and no Democrat should want this, either.

[jsw_81]

32. I have no doubt...

That's you don't understand a thing about American politics.

[helleborient]

5. Pulled up yet again...this was posted the first time months ago...

And still has the same problems...

The article references are all to self-published "articles" on pro-DK websites.

If you ever get any of this published in a legitimate publication...it might be interesting.

As it is...it is full of so many assumptions and statistical gamesmanship. If this is what DK's campaign is basing its work on, no wonder he is so low on polls.

Anyway...start out assuming self-identified independents are moderates...and you've skewed your results already.

[dpbrown]

8. No, only the top part is republished, the rest is 100% new

The whole lower three-quarters is a new analysis of new data, that I just did yesterday.

(hardly months ago)

There's also no assumption that "independents" are moderates - the data allow self-selection into Party, and then into ideology - the analysis shows "ideology" spread over "candidate" - and makes no assumptions there at all, as these are specifically reported percentages. So perhaps you ought to read it again more carefully if you don't understand it.

What the new analysis shows (you didn't read it or you wouldn't have come to the conclusion you did), is that the "exit poll" data and the 40/40/20 analysis come to the same conclusion.

They find almost exactly the same number of "conservative swing" voters available to the Democratic nominee.

Now, I had no knowledge of the exit poll information when I did the 40/40/20 analysis, so there was no way I could know that both would conclude that there are only 5 million votes at risk on the conservative side of Gore's bell curve.

But what I now know more than ever, and what everyone else had better wise up to, is that the idea we have to cater to the whims of the conservative centrists is a load of hooey.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dpbrown]

9. And...the older material is included only as links

So if you are as familiar as you seem to wish to be perceived on this, you don't have to reread something you read months ago.

The fact that someone is doing an analysis for the first time on some data at a place like DU doesn't make the conclusions any less sound.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[redqueen]

33. This I find sad

It's obvious no attempt was even made to understand the meaning... just brush it off as irrelevant.

I hope we don't end up learning a very dear lesson indeed this year.

[dpbrown]

36. The ones who just "berate" instead of "argue" are "true believers"

Logic holds no sway over them.

Using the same nonlogic that somebody like Rush Limbaugh uses, not even bothering to build a glib understanding of the general facts - and yet holding themselves up with no substantiation, no logic, no appeal, and no argument to deign to look down their noses at someone else's work.

Unfortunately, that's the public that the bought-and-paid-for media is trying to turn everyone into, so we have to keep hitting away at the lies and the misconceptions with the same level of intensity that the dolts put into bashing the truth.

The BFEE wants a "lynch-mob" society because they can easily be corralled by their fear and stereotypes.

We have to strip back the covers, and shine the bright light of truth and logic into their dank, unreal wonderworld.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[redqueen]

38. So true

When I find myself (as I often do) trying to explain to Democrats why free trade agreements as they exist now are horrible for our country, I often chafe at the reliance on 'expert' opinions (partially or wholly funded by or affiliated with decidedly interested parties) and 'conventional wisdom' misinformation. It's sad, because simple empirical evidence should serve, but people insist on believing what they're told instead of what they can see happening with their own eyes. :shrug:

[Voltaire99]

7. Go, Dennis!

I admired him for his lucid response to 911 and Bush, again for running, and all the more for staying in the race when he is thoroughly marginalized by the establishment press as well as his own party.

Kucinich is too good a man for his party to neglect. But then so was the late, much-lamented Wellstone, who endured much the same fate until late in his career when he began to compromise, toe the line, and trade votes. As the late Walter Karp cogently explained, it is in the nature of parties to destroy the heterodox voice in order to cohere. Neither the GOP nor the Democratic Party loves reformers.

Although he is not the progressive reformer that Kucinich is and Wellstone was, Howard Dean is lately learning that even a mild bit of deviation from the orthodox line will bring down the wrath of the money and the fixers.

I don't doubt the numerical analysis presented above, or that given the chance more Americans would vote for Kucinich than for Bush. I especially like the assertion that the 2004 battle is not for the NASCAR slob vote, as the pathetic DLC would like to portray it, but for Gore's voters.

But we know that elections are decided by many hands other than those attached to voters, and it is those hands that will never allow Dennis near the party's nomination, let alone the White House. Dennis could beat Bush. But he cannot beat Terry McAuliffe or Al From.

[HFishbine]

10. I was wondering

if you might find this interesting. Question. Why do you not make allowances for the self-defined "conservatives" who voted for Gore being less inclined to vote for Kucinich.

Also, while your extrapolations for where the votes went are pretty close, you might find this data helpful in the future. Using the exit polling data and the data here, for example, it looks like Gore actaully got about 600,000 more democratic votes than you calculated:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

[dpbrown]

13. I didn't have the total vote to work with, & wasn't asking that Q

So I specifically stated that I was using 104 million as the total. The numbers don't have to match exactly - the sample was barely 13000 people.

To the extent the numbers match approximately, it still supports the original analysis.

And the very point was to show where the battleground would be.

In my earlier arguments, I proposed that Kucinich would score stronger among former Nader voters, and so would need no former Bush voters to win - therefore was in a better position to beat the Black Box and electoral vote shift "spread."

The exit polling data bolstered that earlier conclusion, by coming up with nearly exactly the same number of "conservative" Gore voters that I said there would be using the 40/40/20 analysis.

That, in my mind, is the far more startling and compelling jewel in the exit polling numbers.

My earlier arguments were against the assumption, tossed about by the "conservatives calling themselves centrists" that their numbers were so overwhelming that we had to nominate one of their own in order to win.

I used the 40/40/20 analysis to show that they were worth about 5 million votes.

The exit polling data confirms that, for all their bluster, the "conservatives calling themselves centrists" are worth about 5 million votes.

That means I was right.

The point you're bringing up this time is different, and, I would argue, built into the equation.

The comparison of battlegrounds lays it out like this -

A voter who voted in 2000 for the Democratic nominee would be measurably more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee this time around, than would a voter who voted for the Republican nominee in 2000.

That's how you square the caution that you offer above - namely that some of the 5 million conservative voters who voted for Gore but wished he were more conservative might not vote for Kucinich.

That's why the weight of some of those voters is offset by gaining the Nader votes.

As the original analysis showed, 3 million gained on the "left" would mean that the nomineee could lose 1.5 million on the "right" and still beat Bush without needing a single former Bush voter.

I proposed, and still assert, that the Democratic nominee will be in a much stronger position by being able to win, and win decisively, by catering to the Nader vote, and the core Democratic vote (worth almost exactly the number I said it would be), in going up against Bush.

The alternative is fighting for former Bush voters. And that's what all the other candidates offer - betrayal of Democratic values to attempt to "focus group" appeal to voters who voted Republican last time.

Only Kucinich can beat Bush by remaining true to his core, traditional, liberal Democratic roots. He's been a Democrat in politics for over 30 years, he beats incumbent Republicans, and he doesn't have to compromise on his roots to do so.

Kucinich's appeal to Republicans also shows in his take in his district - 50% of the Republican vote.

Compare Dean - who went from 75% in 1992 to just 54% in 1998 and barely 50% in 2000 before deciding to "run for President" - leaving a legacy of a strong "progressive" party and a strong Republican Party and a weakened, niche, out-of-power Democratic Party.

We'll be stronger with Kucinich as the nominee, both against Bush, and concerning coattails, and in preparing the way for future Democratic candidates.

And the numbers back that assertion up.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[HFishbine]

14. Very intersting

Thanks for the analysis.

[dpbrown]

18. You're welcome, and thank you for the challenge

I also appreciated being able to look at data that I was previously unaware of.

Thanks again,

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dpbrown]

27. A kick for public financing!

Because Dennis and not any other candidate, gets more of his contributions from small donors, he qualified for the highest percentage of matching funds of any candidate running.

Go Dennis!

[Desertrose]

28. good on Dennis for stayin' in

Good on Dennis for being who he is!!!!!!


and good on you, too. dan :loveya:

DR

yeah DK :yourock:

[dpbrown]

37. Thanks for the kind words, DR!

It's easy to keep fighting when you know people are being empowered.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

:kick:

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[no name no slogan]

30. Excellent piece Dan!

I have been following the evolution of this argument since you posted the beginning of it. This latest version with the new analysis is very convincing and should dispell any doubts about Kucinich's "electability".

The only place I differ with you is on the shape of the bell curve: I would argue that currently, the Repubs are at the far right of the curve, and the Dems are not much farther to the left of them. In other words, the greatest portion of the bell curve is on the left side of where the Dems are now!

Proof of this is easy: look at the record-low voter turnout numbers for the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Fully 1/2 of registered voters DID NOT VOTE because neither major candidate (nor the more popular 3rd party candidates) appealed to them. Also, most Americans are much more liberal on several "winning" Democratic issues (NAFTA, Universal Health Care, corporate power, etc.) than ANY of the major Democratic party candidates have been in the past decade.

Instead of reaching leftward to include our abandoned base and potential liberal voters, we have instead chose to fight the Republicans for a fraction of these liberal conservative (i.e., "moderate") voters-- mainly because of their money, IMHO.

We can easily beat the Repubs this year, but we won't do it by appealing to the Repubs "liberal" voters. We'll do it be focusing on our abandoned left-leaning base, and those on our left, who have not voted in past presidential elections.

Excellent analysis! :hi:

[dpbrown]

34. I see what you're saying - the "shadow" bell curve fills in on the left

I was a bit surprised at how "left-sloping" Gore's bell curve was.

The straight 40/40/20 analysis projected a curve looking like this:

10% wishing he were more conservative (5 million votes)
80% at the "core" or "the porridge is just right" level (40 million)
10% wishing he were more populist or conservative (5 million)

But what the VNA exit polls showed was a real left-leaning bell curve:

10% wishing he were more conservative (5 million, just like I said)
55% only at the "just right porridge" level (less than 30 million "core" votes)
35% wishing he were more liberal or populist (between 15 and 20 million!)

And 80 million people didn't vote.

How many didn't vote but thought if Gore were more liberal or populist they might have voted for him?

It's very easy to project, given the low slope of Gore's bell curve, and taking as one end Gore's 5 million "wishing he were more conservative" votes, and at the other end Nader's 3 million "liberal idealist" votes - a bell curve including year 2000 nonvoters that would dramatically rise right up over the middle between the 55% and the 35% - that's exactly how this sample would be weighted if someone were to do an analysis of where the real core strength of the liberal bell curve lay.

Thanks for bringing that up.

I think that's a key "take-away" from this look at the 40/40/20 rule backed up with VNA's exit polling numbers from 2000:

The real progressive core voter available to Democrats in 2004 will come from voters (and nonvoters) whose positions are more populist or progressive (more to the "left") than Gore's and therefore the Democratic Party's stated positions.

Kucinich is still the candidate who will resonate most decisively with those left-leaning voters and nonvoters to make his defeat of Bush in 2004 a resounding slap-down of the Republicans - and that is the only acceptable response to the BFEE and their insane plans for world domination.

There are way more people who will vote for a progressive Democrat than there are potential "switch" Republican voters.

Stop trying to appeal to Republican voters to beat Bush!

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[oasis]

29. Dennis K. has made a valuable contribution to the campaign with his

presence. He's kept the other candidate's feet to the fire.

I would have no hesistation in helping him gain the presidency if he is our nominee.

[dpbrown]

35. Thanks oasis - we need to reclaim the nation from the BFEE damage

And I think Dennis has the best plan to do just that.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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