Kucinich supporters ONLY: If Kucinich doesn't win, who do you want?

Kucinich supporters ONLY, please vote. If Kucinich does not win the nomination, who would be your next favorite candidate to win the nomination? This is just out of curiosity.

Bob Graham!

:)

you'll regret it!

with the consequences of voting my conscience.... :eyes:

... the obvious choice?

Graham was my second choice. Oh well.

my second choice is Graham...he dropped out....see?

and will just wait to see who gets the nomination. Then I'll volunteer for the effort to send Bushboy back to his "ranch."

I'd have to seriously consider the full ramifications of supporting anyone other than DK. John Kerry makes some sense, if I could just forget about that vote for the Iraq war. I'd have to get serious in my studying of this.

Last I heard he had close to 0%

Oh yeah, I'd probably vote for Dean....

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

You should do a rollcall vote, where they have to post. We know who the real Kucinich supporters are and some of them intend to write his name in.

Its proportional to the other candiate polls.

RC

way in which to prove whether those who are participating are actually Kucinich supporters.

I tried to reply to the personal message you sent me...but it appears you have gotten yourself tombstoned...so I did so here

RC

n/t

with support revolving around Dean and Clark. Either that or Dean and Clark supporters are "freeping" the poll.

Those two are always neck n neck but we were up there on crediblity.

It is so obvious I actually laughed when I saw the votes for Clark. I have never (in person) met a Kucinich supporter who would move on to Clark if Kucinich drops out. LOL

You think Kucinich supporters will flock to HoHo?

polls who up on pro-Clark blogs and are used as propaganda that the Left LOVES Clark.

I do know a couple Kucinich supporters who would go Dean but very few- most seem to gravitate towards Kerry or Sharpton.

Yes lol, this poll has been seriously freeped. It's too bad for the poll freepers that we all pretty much know each other.

I'd rather run Dean than Clark, and I seem to have a real problem with Kerry. I didn't like his carrier imitation and the whole get over it thing. If you could get Gephardt's economic views onto a pro-peace candidate that would be good too.

Write in Dennis Kucinich.

Check-off or write-in, Dennis is the only sane choice.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams

That needs to be up there...

I still haven't ruled out candidate Mr. Write-In Kucinich.

Depends which candidates remain and how the remainders handle themselves.

TWL

Kerry has been making a stronger impression on me lately, but I'm also now working for Kucinich as a titled volunteer, so my time for considering that is pretty limited.*LOL*

Dean was my second choice, but I've been re-thinking that one. It seems to me that Kerry is probably the most liberal of the other candidates, so I guess it would make more sense for me to support him if DK drops out.

What? You don't think she's electable? HA! (rimshot)

Sharpton is my second choice.

Sharpton above all is substantive.

He answers questions directly!!!

He doesnÕt speak in political platitudes.

Yes, he is has a brilliant wit, but I think people try to minimize his message
as entertaining instead of substantive.

Dean is my third choice. He showed true leadership and vision for not supporting the war.

The candidates who voted for the war are dead to me.

It might be worthwhile to look at the timeline. Up through the Conason interview published in Salon on 20th February this year, he was still supporting the invasion and massacre. Then his handlers must have seen that support was a loser, so he switched literally or almost literally overnight: on the 21st he was saying 'no way!'. Does that really show any kind of true leadership or vision?

No it doesnÕt, and itÕs hard to keep up when and what they said.

Like I said, DK and Sharpton are the only ones I really trust.

From the underdog, radical progressive to the popular centrist...? Doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, I'm a Kucinich supporter, and if DK doesn't get the nomination... I suppose I'd go to Braun. Then Sharpton. Then Dean.

It'll depend on lots of things. If Kucinich makes a respectable showing then drops out of the race, other candidates will move to the left to scoop up Kucinich's votes. I'd go with the one that moved farthest to the left.

Sharpton then Braun.

However, I will support whomever is left standing after the smoke clears. We MUST remove these madmen from power.

'freeped'.
No way to know who is voting, without some sort of one vote, per one post on the thread.

Most Kucinich supporters are known around here. Still it would not be perfect.

I realllllly don't see Kucinich supporters flocking to Clark and I don't see Dean either as getting that many votes. Especially not after 'ad'-gate.



My choice: Sharpton or Kerry, can't decide right now.



TWL

LMAO! When purple monkeys fly outta my ass! :wtf: I would bet money that most would probably migrate to Sharpton, Kerry or Dean, if they went anywhere.

Maybe most would support Clark as the eventual nominee---maybe --- but as a primary candidate? Ummmm, I think not. :shrug:

Liberal though I am, I do NOT support the idea that the United States should ABDICATE it's role as the primary power broker in the modern world. When I read Kucinich's platform I see a systematic attempt on his part to withdraw the United States from its position of uniquely crucial influence in international affairs. Basically, Dennis is a good guy, BUT he is ALSO an isolationist. I am of the liberal stripe that says liberals should be involved in the affairs of the entire world! Kucinich is definitely NOT that, and he will definitely NOT receive my vote for exactly that reason.

Kucinich is the liberal equivalent of Pat Buchanan. They both want to turn the United States into Denmark. Denmark has a long history of being stridently outspoken about its domestic issues and completely irrelevant in foreign policy. Buchanan says let's take the US and completely withdraw from world affairs so we can turn our country into a (supposedly) conservative paradise where we speak our minds on domestic issues and completely abandon our influence over the entire world. Kucinich says the exact same thing, only from the far left. He wants to turn us into a nation that cares only about liberal DOMESTIC issues, and meanwhile, COMPLETELY withdraws from the big issues facing the world today. I do NOT want to turn the the United States into an isolationist Denmark, and I will never, EVER vote for candidate who has that vision. In my humble opinion, Kucinich and Buchanan both represent cowardly defeatist attitudes that come from completely opposite ends of the political spectrum. Either one of them would completely destroy the primacy of the United States in world affairs, and I will never, EVER support either one of them for exactly that reason!!!!!

international corporate greedheads in their profiteering instead of great schools and free health care and building a better america is core progressive value.(snicker)

be straight, you're not really a 'liberal' you just play one on DU, right?

was handmade by a small, mom n' pop computer company; same with your car and your medicines. None of those vile corporate machinations for KG. No sir, he's far too precious to be sullied by anything to do with large corporations -- nor the MILLIONS of men and women who they employ nor the tens of millions of stockholders who have invested in them.

I'm certain KG wouldn't be so hypocritical as to actually allow his fingers to even touch a mass-produced computer or car or cellphone or TV set. These must all come from individual fabricators.

The stupidity of your logic stuns those of us who've made peace with the modern world because it's the only world we'll ever know. To bad you don't get it. Go ahead, rage against the machine -- you and Dennis the menace deserve each other.

You're a real work of art. There's no way in hell you're a Liberal or very smart- that's one of the most idiotic posts I've ever seen at DU.

Do work on it before you paste it again. It needs a lot of help if you expect it to be taken seriously.

where did I see this exact rant about Denmark and Pat? NO ONE ASKED YOU. For the second time...this says "DENNIS SUPPORTERS ONLY"

sheesh
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

:dem: :dem:

It is used mostly to mean that you don't want to stick the U.S. military's collective nose into every world hotspot.

But to my mind, the true isolationists are the Busheviks, the ones who just do what they want to do without any consideration for any other country's point of view.

Kucinich is not a pacifist. But he wants to use military force only as a last resort and only to defend the real interests of the U.S., and only with the backing of the international community.

Sounds a lot less isolationist than the chest-thumpers who are always waving the flag and talking about going in and kicking somebody's ass, as if patriotism were the same as bullying.

that's STILL funny!!

:shrug: