If I really thought he/she had ANY chance of winning, I'd vote for...

Please note that for the purposes of this poll, I am NOT interested in knowing who you are really supporting. I just want to know if you would be supporting someone different if you truly believed they had a chance. For instance, Dennis Kucinich is probably closest to my political philosophy, but I think he is too liberal to win the nomination. And I LOVE Carol Moseley Braun - I think she is the most intelligent one of the bunch - but I think I'll be an old, old man before a woman, let alone a black woman, is ever elected president.

A hell of a lot quicker than I could vote for Lieberman.

who I voted for, but it was one of the candidates that is in the bottom tier whose last name begins with a "K". <wink>

mosley bruan change her name to K Mosley Braun? :)

...in half a heartbeat.

or perhaps Sharpton, after tonight.

But as far as people who can win, Clark will get my vote if he decides to run.

between Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosley Braun.


Im not meaning to attack any of these candidates.

MR. BUSH BAUD MAN.....HE VEDY, VEDY, BAUD MAN !!

...n/t

Kucinich is the man. He is saying everything we need to hear. However, is he electible. Clinton was a long shot, why not Kucinich.

Braun and Kucinich. What that about the populace being in the middle?

even for a slight fraction of a second. Kucinich's heartfelt emotion is what has me supporting him. I feel that he is one of the few that means what he says.

As far as the woman thing goes, I'm still angry at what happened here in NYC in the last few years with Ferrer and McCall. If the next candidate for governor of NYS or the mayor of NY isn't black, have a latino last name, or a woman then I'm not voting for them.

:bounce:

,,, is characterized by self-denial. We often deny ourselves the very things we desire the most, under the guise of "taking control". ("I'll show you and won't even give you the satisfaction of saying 'no'!") In other words, we become habituated very early on (in our appositional years) to predicting that "they'll never let me have/do..." so I won't even waste my time trying. In so doing, we embody the 'stern father' (vengeful God?) precepts under the illusion that somehow we'll be more 'adult' if we reduce such conflicts with those who have authority over us. I see it as one of the core behaviors of authoritarians (those indoctrinated to subordination). The problem is that it's a preadolescent coping technique -- one that's disoptimal in making choices. Our choices shouldn't be reactive to desirability, they should be proactive towards 'greatest good' and 'do no harm'. As we mature, our own desires become a function of our view of 'goodness' rather than 'pleasure' -- yet we continue to practice self-denial habits from the immature 'pleasure-oriented' phases of our emotional development.

This behavior is rampant in DU. So-and-so is 'unelectable' even though my favorite, so I won't support him/her. But I'd rather be 'right' than be happy. :shrug: Adolescent, emotionally immature (dysfunctional) nonsense.

... make sense to anyone? Tragic. :eyes:

is looking through a crystal ball. Since I am not a physcic I refuse to participate in this poll.

(Someday, I'll learn to spell "optimist")

> The only way to tell if a candidate has no chance of winning"
> is looking through a crystal ball.

I'm sorry, I don't share your optimistic view of America.

I don't believe there's any chance in Hell for America to
elect a Jew, an African-American, a homosexual, an atheist,
or (probably) a woman. Maybe some day, but not yet.

So, by my lights, any candidate that fits one or more of
the above categories is "unelectable" to the top office
and, so far, has been poison even as VP.

Atlant

Women outnumber men in the US population so a woman can very well be elected and very small portion of men are anti-women rights but I suspect they would vote republican in the first place. Racists are a small minority in this country and who wants to pick up the racist vote? A homosexual propaly has no chance, an atheist has a good chance unless it is paroded by the media but if the atheist candidate shows he does have morals I think he has a good chance. A jew, well Gore and Lieberman got elected and the anti-jew population is very small as well. It's not optomism, it's the truth. Why don't we elect an african american candidate and find out.

In fact, I'll expand my list. Add "Moslem, or any other
non-Christian". So I guess that means that I believe that:

Only a White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (or MAYBE
another Catholic) Male can be elected. No others need
apply.

Sorry.

Atlant

... that folks who seem to invest so much of their attention in "what do others think?" often sacrifice the development of their ability to think for themselves.

Would they be better off trading in those crystal balls for mirrors? Dunno. :shrug:

and the one I agree with the most, but in the more usual "supporting" poll I'd be thinking of switching to Clark for electability reasons. (I think Clark would make almost as good a President, but have better chances of winning the general election.) I actually disagree with Kucinich even when electability is taken out of the picture.

what are Dean's chances?

Interesting that you should have this poll. Just the other day, I was thinking that if it looked like the Dems had a juggernaut going by election day, I might just vote my real heart and vote for Kucinich if he was on the ballot.

I chose K in the poll, and I'm still backing Dean in the election, but if Nader had a chance, there's a damned good chance I would have voted for him.

Kucinich has the right vision, I hope his ideas gain currency in this country.

The next president should consider Braun for a key role in his administration