Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun are doing piss poor raking in donations. Both received around $125,000 for Q3. I can't possibly see how they can stay in the race much longer. When they drop out, they should endorse Kucinich, and their supporters should join DK's.

Now, if you combine up their poll numbers: Sharpton 6-7 percent. Braun 2-3 percent. And Kucinich's 2-3 percent. Well then we have 10-13 percent of the vote for Dennis Kucinich. And that isn't even considering all the people DK is bring back to the party. Nader/LaDuke have both said DK is the man. 2000 Natural Law Party Candidate, John Hagelin, has also endorsed DK. Really now, Dennis Kucinich stands at a good 14-17% for the primaries, if everyone goes out and supports him.

With contributions on the upswing. DK is in this til the end.

The Democratic Nominee can not win the general election without the Greens' vote...sad but true--Support Dennis Kucinich today.

www.kucinich.us

We'd love to have them though. We cant be elitist and say your candiate should back out just so we can get the support but we likely would but this is just like one of the supporters of the frontrunners trying to do this to us. Respect their choice EA.

a reality coming soon that due to lack of funds they will.

You can't survive with $125,000 in Q3. Seriously, you can't.

It could come soon and it would be a pleasure to have them if they so join us. So maybe we could be at :shrug: 10-20% sometime. I understand completely you werent being elitist or anything. Hey heres to a Kucinich victory :beer:

Will have an up hill battle what with the corporate media running non stop political commercials and lack of funds.
.
Remember Bush has $200,000,000 plus to work with. What candidate can cope with that. Bush will be bombarding the airwaves with no stop political ads and still have money left over to finance any and all of Karl Roves dirty tricks.
.
Ad preprogrammed electronic voting machines and we're screwed.
.
This is not to say we can't win but everyone must realize this is not politics as usual and we are all in a "war".
.
Like it or not ....this country was taken over 2000 and due to irregularities in the voting system it was completed 2002.
.
We already know the lies that have been told, we also know the crimes that have been commited, and the theft that's going on. We know that Bush/Cheney etal are thieves. Why do we waste our time repeating this stuff day after day?
.
Yes I agree if we can nail them and get action on their wrong doing it could trigger some legal action BUT
.
We need to discuss solutions and get busy acting on some of them. BBV is IMO the only issue if we don't get a handle on that...it's all she wrote.
.
We need to become MORE organized we won't win this helter skelter.
.
Sorry for the rant but this is so frustrating watching them bulldoze us day after day.

now, but with the stipulation that I really don't WANT them out. It's kind of depressing to think of the debates without Sharpton in there, and CMB has been picking up a few pointers on being hard-edged lately.

Facts are facts, though, and we've already lost one candidate to low fund-raising. I'm also afraid their time is drawing near, and I sincerely hope they both will back Dennis. I can't see them choosing any other candidate to endorse given their platforms and their reasons for running.

Usually after a Super Tuesday election the cream rises to the top and the rest realize they don't stand a chance. Those who drop out typically don't endorse anyone, they just sit it out quietly until the nominee is picked. There may be a couple of candidates who go the duration who don't really stand a chance (Al Sharpton comes to mind), but it's hard to keep a campaign together when there's really nothing left to win. We'll see.

I'm fond of DK. I think he's an honorable man who really fights for what he believes in. I disagree with him on a few big issues, but I think his heart is in the right place.

He has no chance to win the nomination. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. The democratic nominee will NOT need the 3% of the Green Vote as much as he/she will need the 20% of the centrist/unaffiliated vote.

Nader/LaDuke's endorsement means exactly nothing. I've met Nader. I've worked for Nader organizations. I respect Nader. But he has no electoral constituency of real value. Sorry. I really don't like to harsh on DK, and I don't mean to. I just can't see how anybody who polls under 3% nationally can get the nom.

ask Clinton how he did it.

??

in NH and most everywhere else he was sitting at about 2% and nobody knew who he was or thought he had a chance. Then the whole Flowers thing hit and all of a sudden everyone knew who he was and he shot up from there.

Just a few minutes ago, I was communicating with a friend about Edwards, and told her Clinton started to grow in the polls, when the Jennifer Flowers thing was reported.

If he fell to low single digits it was because of the Flowers thing. But he was a legitimate contender (though forth) from the beginning.

DK can't SEE 11% from where he's standing, and has no excuse for being at 2% other than lack of qualificatons.
He won't be bouncing back when people realize "Oh, I forgot he WAS a Governor". You can solve character issues, you can't pick up extra experience during the primaries ("In the news today, Kucinich attended the pretigious 'executive experience' program and is now qualified to be President - polls show him 'skyrocketing' to five percent")

Clinton was a 6% in october '91.
Not very impressive, but Kucinich has to more than DOUBLE his support to catch up to the bottom of Clinton's scandal ratings. What is Dennis waiting to "bounce back" from ?

The NH Primary was three weeks later back then compared to when it will be next year. And the primaries after NH are a lot sooner than in 1992. October of 1991 does not equal October 2003.

So he has less time to make up the gap and less time to gain support after NH if he pulls of a miracle third/fourth place finish?

that the 49% of sit-at-homes are specifically liberal/left and are available to a Dem candidate whose supporters can make these disenchanted, deeply unhappy people believe that it's not all a waste of effort.

Dennis and Al are the only such candidates. Despite all the rhetoric by other candidates, Dennis and Al are the only ones who are not business-as-usual. They are the only ones who stand for at least some real change.

Are we willing to do the work to bring some large fraction of that alienated 128M to the polling place?

If we're willing to do the work, it'll happen.

Ralph Nader certainly polled significant votes in 2000. I think almost everyone agrees that if those votes went for Gore, the nation today would be much different.

all of the votes from CMB and Sharpton??

Why can't Dean just add them to his vote? Or Kerry? or any of the others?

My goodness, I just realized that all Lieberman has to do is get Dean, Kerry, and Clark to drop out and add their numbers to his! He's got this thing wrapped up already!


Edit -

In the DU poll running now. 14% of Kucinich supporters list Braun or Sharpton as their second choice. ow can you possibly assume that 100% of their supporters have Kucinich are THEIR second choice?

Carol has the endorsement of NOW and Al isn't the kind of person to drop out.

Even if they both drop out now and endorse him (which I agree is not going to happen), he still won't get every one of those votes. Not even half, probably not a third.

I've been saying all along that the polls aren't accurately reflecting Kucinich's popularity. I've told this story before but perhaps not everyone read it. We've had numerous tabling events here and the ONLY candidate supporters who have participated have been Dean and Kucinich. Our CDC convention was here at the end of July and, once again, only Dean and Kucinich supporters were tabling, wearing T-shirts, buttons, etc. I figured it was a Fresno thing but then, about 5 weeks ago, I went down to L.A. for a Democratic Party Endorsement Caucus (for Guv.) and once again, the only T-shirts, buttons, etc., I saw was for Dean and Kucinich. Remember, these are California delegates. It made me realize that this isn't merely a regional phenomenon. I think Kucinich's popularity is going to take a lot of people by surprise.

And a plea . . . guys, no matter who you support, could we remember that, regardless of who gets the nomination, we're all going to need each other at the end so we need to tone down the vitriol against other Dem. candidates. Those bridges are going to be awefully hard to build if your (or my) candidate doesn't get the nomination and we have to support someone for whom we are less enthusiastic.

although at the Wellstone Memorial Beanfeed, the Dean supporters were absent, and there were about five Clark supporters instead, along with one each for Kerry and Edwards.

The Kucinich supporters know that they can't rely on expensive advertising, so they're extra zealous about showing up at public events, even if it's just wearing their T-shirts to events where tabling and leafletting are forbidden.

I think there will be a lot of suprised people after Iowa. :)

A lot of folks seem to have forgotten about Jesse Jackson in 1988. He was also a longshot according to most people, but he suprised the hell out of the Democratic establishment and the nation when he finished in the top 3 in the Iowa caucuses. All of a sudden, you saw magazine and newspaper articles about "what would happen to the country" if Jackson were elected president. Jackson got a lot of momentum after Iowa, and many non-Jackson supporters started "fearing for the worst" that Jesse would get the nomination. Sure, he didn't win, but he gave Dukakis a big scare (I worked for the Dukakis campaign at the time-- and we had some worries at the congressional district conventions!)

Kucinich's campaign is very similar to Jackson's. It's low-budget, but very grassroots. Kucinich doesn't look like he has much support among the party regulars, but he has A LOT of support among non-Democrats and disaffected Democrats. Almost all the supporters of his I talk to have NEVER been involved in a political campaign, but bring in lots of experience from labor, women's rights, and peace & justice campaigns.

IMHO, that's also why his popularity is not reflected in a lot of the polls. First, look at who the polls sample: typically, they're either registered Democrats or people who have previously voted Democratic. They're not asking previous non-voters, independents or lapsed Democrats, who make up much of Kucinich's support.

With none of the candidates with over 20% right now, this thing is FAR from over....:)

Fight Bush , not democrats!

" Snap out of it"

They both know that they cannot win. So the fact that thier campaigns are not making any progress is not going to cause them to drop out. They are running for other reasons.

Even if everything that you are predicting would happen, 17% isn't going to win the nomination.

I like Dennis, but your theory requires three things to happen, each more unlikely than the one that precedes it:

1) Sharpton and Mosely-Braun BOTH have to drop out and SOON.

2) They then BOTH have to endorse Dennis.

3) ALL the Sharpton and Mosely-Braun voters have to break for Dennis. All of them. That's where you get your 10-13% support. They ALL have to break for DK. That ain't gonna happen.

But it's good to stay positive, so kudos for that. :)

Their voices are desperately needed.

I also hope that, if one or the other drops out regardless of reason, that they cut a good deal with someone for their support. I hope that someone is Dennis (though I think CMB is probably politically closer to Gephardt or Kerry) but I'll understand if not. Or at least try to understand.

However, I'd like to see Sharpton speak again. He is a great speaker. When Dennis wins the nomination, he should invite Sharpton to speak at all his events.

...from Dean to Kucinich (Well, Dean to Graham to Clark to Kucinich). I am inspired by Kucinich every time he speaks. I can see him coming from nowhere in the weeks and months ahead to possibly winning the nomination. Dean and Kucinich seem to be inspiring a lot of people. Kucinich/Dean or Dean/Kucinich would be AWESOME!

I think that could happen too. I know you live in Michigan, and John Conyers really likes Dennis who knows an endorsement that would be sweet. I think a friend of mine has went from Dean to Kucinich now too. Woohoo to both of you. Now let me get :toast:

We sure are an optimistic bunch, huh? :D

could write a scenario so far out to lunch.

I recognize that appreciation of reality is not a feature of the Kucinich schtick, but if you think that the Democratic Party is likely to nominate Kucinich, I would like to sell you the very special Saturn 5 rocket that I keep in my backyard to disrupt the contrails that would otherwise control your brain.

there is no need to belittle people

IMHO, you're one of the "Good Guys" :toast:

Although I'm probably one of the most cynical people in the world, I STILL think Dennis could pull it off. "The race ain't over yet".

:yourock:

He has technically more foriegn policy experience than Bush. He has also been involved in politics since the late 60's and has represented a district the size of Vermont since 96 that is population wise. Hes perfectly qualified with real world experience, executive, and legislative experience. I bet people were laughing at you guys when you werent doing so hot in the polls, good thing people like indigo have respect.

But I'll give you a shot. Can you be more specific?

Is his "executive experience" being a one term (then losing) mayor of a major city? Is that one promotion short of POTUS?

Is his legislative experience mostly city council, state senator and three terms as a congressman in a "gimme" district (plus again one loss)? Is that comparable to someone who has been elected President?

I'm sure "real world experience" sounds good, but to me it sounds like "resume' padding language" for "several years out of politics when he loses".

"Represented a district the size of Vermont"???? Means what? He should have a district population within spitting distance of every one of 435 other congressman out there. Does "one of the top 600 office-holders in the country" put you on the short list for President?

Lastly... What foreign policy experience does he "technically" have? As little as Bush HAD, I'm not sure DK even has as much as shrub had before 2000. Mind you, I'm not talking skill here :eyes: just "experience". Gov of TX does have some minor foreign experience. Of course, by the time of the election, Shrub will have been President for almost four years. DK's website is hiding this foreign policiy experience you mention. Was it his "media consultant" position or his "public utility consultant" position?

As for respect - Well, you got me there. I think we're sniping way too much at each other here. So you have MY apology if nobody else's. I just feel silly arguing over a junior congressmans qualifications to be the leader of the free world. People are mistake "perfect positions/passion" for "qualification".

In case you've missed it the milions of times it's been mentioned before, Kucinich's district is made up of conservatives and Republicans!

Foreign Policy, try this on for size-
He wrote the Tikkun Peace Proposal, he's won the Ghandi Peace Award for his efforts to promote peaceful international relations, has been involved in several UN conferences, and has traveled extensively to a number of war-torn foreign nations, including Kosovo. He's got Foreign Policy experience out the ying-yang!

Ok, Cleveland's default cost him an election. He saw that in the cards, but refused to break his promise to the people who elected him, and this is a bad thing?!

Legislative experience is meaningless to you, huh? Whacky attitude if you ask me. Seems to me a law-maker has a better idea what the President will be able to do than anyone else, and especially after 4 terms and a near perfect voting record.

Oh yah, Bush has foreign policy experience alright, like hanging out with the Bin Ladens for years, and forming a familial bond with the Saudi Royals.:eyes: Call me crazy and snipe away, but I prefer the candidate who has the wisdom and the practicality to write a peace proposal to settle the Israeli/Palestinian dispute over the Bin Laden family's greatest ally in the US.

Must be a remarkable "conservatives and Republicans" district.

Also: A Republican Senator that won statewide by about 25% barely pulled out a tie in that county.

Then look at the size of his victories. Do imagine for a moment that 75%/25% is evidence of great popularity? Or might it be that the opposition never runs a real candidate because they have absolutely no shot? When Edwards or Cark or Dascle were talked about as potential nominees... remember how everyone was worries that the choice would then put their seat in play? That we might not take back the Senate because too many of our candidates were from competitive (or conservative) states? You hearing any of that about DK? Some worry about who would be able to keep that seat?

The Tikkun Peace Proposal? (I notice you capitalized it like it was some "Camp David Accords" yet Google has never heard of it.) Isuspect you forgot to mention his "Mock UN" credentials as well. Every Congressman gets to take junckets into foreign lands. That's how they get free vacations. It isn't "Foreign Policy experience".

I don't think legislative experience is meaningless. But if that's the senior position you've held (and for only 7-8 years)? There are literally hunderds of men and women with that experience, it isn't "Presidential" standard. 25 years, 30 years, Speaker of the House, or Majority Leader of the Senate. Dascle and Gephardt and Lieberman and Clark have "Legislative Experience". Even Edwards (one of my favorites) doesn't qualify very well (though "Senator" is a better resume' line than "Congressman"). A "perfect voting record" is irrelevant... I'm not talking about whether he agrees with your priorities, I'm talking about whether his resume' hits the standard for "Leader of the Free World"

"Seems like a lawmaker has a bettter idea what the President will be able to do than anyone else." It may SEEM that way to you, but not to anyone else in the world. The legislative and executive functions are not camparable.

I said it before, but:

It's like the kid with a HS diploma applying for the job that lists "MBA & 10yrs experience required" on the job description. He may be a genius, he may interview well, he might even be smart enough to do the job - but it's going to the candidate with the MBA. "President of High-school debating society and active member of the key club and SADD chapter" won't swing the decision. He is unqualified - end of story - come see us in fifteen years kid.

And your Bush comment (while on target) is irrelevant. Again you mistake being right with being experienced. We have dozens (hundreds) of candidates who would make better foreign policiy decisions than Bush. That is NOT the same thing as experience. He has been Resident for three years. His foreign travels make DKs look like highschool field trips. And DKs staff seems to lack the "Sectretary of State" "Secretary of Defense" "Foreign Policy Advisor" titles.

Again. Don't mistake what I'm saying. After you get the job interview, your brains and creativity and passion are what get you the job. But you don't get the interview without meeting the minimum resume' requirments. In politics we call this "polling at 1-2%"

Of course he won a lot of conservatives!

"Then look at the size of his victories. Do imagine for a moment that 75%/25% is evidence of great popularity? Or might it be that the opposition never runs a real candidate because they have absolutely no shot?"

Um- seems to me them having no shot is probably because the incumbant is well liked, or do you just assume people vote party lines all the time? And actually yes I do hear that quite a bit about Kucinich's district right now. Not in the beginning so much because people just assumed he wouldn't last through the primaries. Now they're getting a little worried, and they should be.

Oh I see, so you don't want a President who hasn't been a Governor or Senator. Tough, and I resent the comment that there's something superior about the Senate as compared with the House. The only thing they're superior at is generally being dull as dishwater. Without Kennedy and Byrd I doubt I'd ever take a glance at Senate activity.

Do you realize that you're essentially saying a Senator is more qualified to be President because he's been a step closer to the office itself? Cripes man, being two doors down from the President of a corporation doesn't make me more qualified than the guy who is 4 doors away! There is NOTHING that happens in the Senate to impart more qualifications to run the country, the legislative system works identically in both houses of Congress.

"Mock UN" experience? WTF? So you're telling me that repeatedly engaging in speeches and relations with members of the UN isn't foreign policy experience? What the hell is with you people?!

"Again you mistake being right with being experienced. We have dozens (hundreds) of candidates who would make better foreign policiy decisions than Bush. That is NOT the same thing as experience."

You do not make any sense. The statement above makes my point, not yours. You're the one going on about some imaginary "experience" and now you say experience is meaningless anyway. Exactly what good is it to have someone "experienced" at making lousy decisions?!

What "experience" did Dean have before he stepped into the Governor's office, as Lt Governor, when the sitting governor died?

What kind of campaign experience does he have? Has the fact that he won with ever-shrinking margins in each of his re-elections? Or the fact that he couldn't deliver VT to the Dems when he stepped down? Or the fact that he was in charge of getting more Dem governors elected in 2002, but failed miserably?

Let's also take a look at the last two Democratic governors we've elected, and their effectiveness. Both Clinton and Carter came to DC thinking they could run congress like they "ran" the state houses in Arkansas and Georgia, respectively. Both had a very rough two years, even though both dealt with a relatively "friendly" congress.

How about the fact that JFK had only served part of a Senate term and a couple of US House terms before being elected?
Yes, experience is important, but if we based our choice solely on experience, than LBJ would have been the greatest president ever, according to your reasoning.

I'm not a big Dean fan (though in many ways he's our best chance).

But asking what kind of experience he had {b}before being Governor is wierd. He actually WAS Governor for about twelve years. And Governor IS the closest position to President.

"Let's also take a look at the last two Democratic governors we've elected, and their effectiveness." I agree with their early year level of "success". What you miss is the critical point: They were elected. Let's look at the record of success for the last three term Congressman we elected? (sound of crickets chirping in the distance inserted here)

Yes. How about JFK. War hero, multi term Congressman THEN elected to the Seante (notice that on DK's resume'?) THEN national prominenece as an almost VP nominee (DK?).

LASTLY and most importantly... Has DK changed his last name to Kennedy while I wasn't looking??? There are a number of ways people get around the experience issue. Clark has one of them, Kennedy had another. DK has none of this. He'll fit nicely into someone's cabinet. Pres & VP are not possibilities.

Ok he started out as a city councilman in the late 60's, then became mayor for that one term, was a state senator in the early 90's, and has been a congressman. He has experience. Foriegn Policy? You do a lot of foriegn policy as a congressman.

Dennis Kucinich has NO foreign policy experience of any kind, unless you count his long stretch hanging out at Shirley McLain's beach house in Santa Monica when he was out of work for a decade following his illustrious career as an administrator of the City of Cleveland.
As Shirley communes with beings from other planets and other dimensions, this may indeed give him a claim to being familiar with alien issues, but I am really interested in a President who has experience in Government on this planet.

Just a personal preference.

Dennis has NO foreign policy experience? Tell me, what color is the sky in your world... :wtf:

As was posted above, Dennis has more experience w/ foreign policy than ANY governor (not having served in the US Congress) does. Hell, even Edwards, having only served 2/3 of his term in the Senate, has more FP experience than a state governor does.

"Administrator" of Cleveland. Uh-huh, sure. Using your logic, Dean was the "Administrator" of a state that has a fraction of the population of Cleveland.

If you're going to attack a candidate, why not attack his/her RECORD, or EXPERIENCE (or lack thereof), or POSITIONS rather than what somebody "supposedly" did with Shirley McLean. :eyes:

Smarter monkeys please...

foreign policy experience-

http://search.unfoundation.org:8765/unwire/query.html?col=unwire&qt=Kucinich&submit=Submit

http://www.anes2002.org/ProceedingCD/s10Lo.pdf

http://www.april6vt.org/events/tikkun.html

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/~list.html

http://www.freedomalliance.org/view_article.php?a_id=164

http://www.peaceinspace.com/ed_kucinich.shtml

http://www.peaceinspace.com/ab_accomplish.shtml

http://www.democracy-egypt.org/files/Gov/2001/06-29-01USRepLettertoMubarek.htm

http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm

http://www.starpac.org/kucinich_responses.php

That should do you for now, but do feel free to come back for more.

with experience.

Denny has NO experience. Making a speech in South Africa about renewable energy is NOT diplomatic experience; it is giving a lecture.

I've been all over the world. That doesn't make me a diplomat or give me foreign policy experience.

Making peace involves negotiation, give and take, intercourse with adversaries, creating situations wherein everyone gains. In Denny's one big negotiation in his life, he antagonized his adversaries with his inflexibility and lead his city into default.

Making Peace isn't making a cute semi-coherent speech that panders to the 2% ex-Nader fringe. Making Peace involves flexibility and thinking. It involves negotiations, and personal relationships.

By the way, if I hear one more reference in my lifetime to that "Spirit and Stardust" speech Denny plaguerized from the 1970 Joni Mitchell song, I'm going to vomit. Unlike Ms. Mitchell's poem, Denny's version is tripe. Not worthy of a President, not even worthy of a high school english teacher in a failing school. If you are presenting this as "foreign policy" experience, you are quite nearly deluded as the creator of this thread.

Sheesh, you people are out to lunch. What's really depressing is to recognize that after your fringe is finally forgotten, you're not going to do anything about Bush, but will instead stay at home and sulk that no one cares about your silly "visions". Our country and our world is on fire, and all you will do is diddle.

Making peace involves negotiation, give and take, intercourse with adversaries, creating situations wherein everyone gains. In Denny's one big negotiation in his life, he antagonized his adversaries with his inflexibility and lead his city into default.

'Inflexibility'? The term is 'integrity'. Look it up if you don't know what it means. When push came to shove, with his job, career, and even livelihood on the line, Dennis kept his campaign promise not to sell Muny Light. And Clevelanders are very glad of that now: it's been worth over $200M to them since then, and it will only get better.

That's rock-solid integrity, something no other candidate can match. None. Not one.

As to 'negotiation, give and take' etc., note that he's been elected co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Note, too, some comments from fellow Ohio legislators (this is from a Cleveland Magazine article written when he was first standing for Congress in 1996):

"When I first started talking to Dennis about running for state Senate, a lot of people were telling me: 'Dennis Kucinich is a demagogue; he uses issues for his personal gain; he's a loner; he doesn't work well within a group; he won't take advice; he's headstrong; he knows it all,'" says Democratic state Sen. Robert Boggs. "I found out not only were those not true, but that Dennis is probably one of the most conscientious, effective members of the legislature that I've seen in my over 20 years there."

Impressive. But Boggs is a Democrat. In this era of partisan politics, he's supposed to like him. Let's look more.

"My first blush was, Oh no," says Republican state Sen. Grace Drake, chairperson of the Health Committee Kucinich serves on. "But it turned into a nice friendship and knowing a very, very nice person. He's an excellent legislator. And has proven to me in the Health Committee that he cares about people."

Another?

"Well, I'm not going to do your article any good, 'cause I really like Dennis Kucinich," says Republican state Sen. Richard Finan, chairperson of the Ways and Means Committee Kucinich serves on. "Now, we don't agree on a lot of issues, but I couldn't have a better com mittee member than Dennis."

"I fight the liberals tooth and nail," gloats {Republican state Sen.}Gary Suhadolnik, chairperson of the Energy, Natural Resources and Environment Committee Kucinich sits on. "I've been picketed by animal rights people, homosexuals, labor unions. I've had environmentalists dump garbage in my office. So I've had my share of confrontations with liberal activists. When Dennis rolled in, people thought that this would be the ultimate in personality clashes. And it hasn't been. It's been issue clashes. Dennis has not made it personal, he's made it philosophical and ideological."

He pauses then adds: "Philosophically, he's awful, OK? But I trust him. Does that make any sense? And, of course, I'm in an awful quandary here. I'd like to see him get out of the Senate, but then he'll be my congressman!" He laughs heartily. "What do I do? How do I win this one?"


I won't bother going into Dean's record. Suffice it to say that he doesn't come off best on any fair measure.

him Denny and calling us names.
That makes you more intelligent and "right " I suppose?

If you don't like DK or his ideas ...fine....and if you are unable to open your mind a wee bit to alternative ways of thinking...that's your problem...but the attitude of rightousness and your attempts at putdown is pretty transprent- shows someone not quite so secure in their own world of thought that they need to put down anothers...

.....we are doing a helluva lot more than diddling my friend...are you ?
Peace
DR

I wonder if you'd like it if we call your mansheeple powered Howard?? wouldn't think so- I at least have the class to show Dean the respect he's entitled to, be nice if you in your oh so liberal mindset could do the same...we are in this together...why alienate those you may need?

when a number of those speeches are delivered to the UNITED NATIONS Coucils. Just who do you think makes up the United Nations? Newsflash, foreign National Leaders! It's foreign policy experience when you spend a good portion of your time in those countries with the heads of State and those dealing with the aftermath of your own CiC's bombing campaign. It's foreign policy experience ANY time you're expected to represent your own country to another Nation's Leader.

Kucinich is well known at the UN, and since those are the National Leaders we need to ally ourselves with I'd say he's the BEST qualified one in the race.

Tell me, what experience does the Doc have with other National Leaders? *crickets chirping* Right, but you just carry on acting like an ass. If anything makes people want to stay home it's attitudes like yours, belittling good men and women who think about others instead of running around acting superior.

My hope is that some here see how much you resemble your candidate and decide they don't wish to be as hateful.

Why attack a candidate's position and policies when you can make fun of him and his followers? Real smart, that. :eyes:

You sound like him. Your statements are just as nasty and just as devoid of support.

$10 will get ya $100.

I think DK is bright, sincere and has 'traditional' liberal Democratic values; his presence in the race keeps the other candidates 'honest', so to speak. He'd be a great guy to know and hang out with, and I'd trust him with the keys to my house, my wallet, to take care of my dog, etc. . In short, he's a fine person, and I'd be pleased to call him my friend if I ever got to know him personally.

Now, let's look at the practical problems here: nationally, 2% of *Democrats* say they want DK to be the nominee; here at DU, which has more DK supporters than the general population, DK gets around 15-20%. The more exposure he gets, the more his numbers stay the same.

I just don't see it happening--- I don't see the momentum. *shrug*

because the national media isn't giving him any attention.

Most people can barely name 1 democratic candidate. really, go out on the street and stop people...and ask them to name democratic candidates...they can't!

Kucinich is doing better than his poll numbers suggest, or so I believe.

I think anyone can win the nomination in 2004. Half of the population still refuses to vote. All it takes is one issue, one candidate to strike a chord with these people. Kucinich is definitely the most unique candidate out there with lots of reform of government. This could be exactly what these people are waiting for.

As I said before, the media just won't relate that to the people. When Sharpton and Braun drop out, as I said, I assume most of their supporters will go to Kucinich. Thus increasing his numbers in the polls and hopefully forcing the media to cover him and his vision to reshape america.

And we know they're leftists rather than rightwingers because of how they survey. They're deeply unhappy with 'the American system' and they want major changes.

Nobody but Dennis and Al are even coming close to offering those major changes. If we can make contact with those people, and convince them that Dennis really is offering some serious change (though his program is actually simple, cautious, and mundane, if you look at it closely), really isn't going to sell out or let them down, and is smart enough not to get wellstoned (Goddess I hope he is!!) ...those people will stand up. Alinsky proved that people stand up when they finally believe that doing so will make a difference. Our task is to convince them of that.

First of all. There are not 100M "voters" who stay home. There are roughly 100Million people os "voting age" who don't vote. A great number of them are not registered or, in some cases, eligible to vote.

And how do we know they are leftists? Are you saying liberals are unpatriotic? That 75% of them don't even vote? How un-American!

I've heard this before. If only we would appoint a REAL liberal - people would throng to support him/her. Has it happened before? No.

Who are the candidates who bring out new voters? Perot (I'm not advocating voting for him, but he was perceived as being in between the two parties), McCain (a "conservative" with lots of liberal ideas - again, in the "middle")

Kucinich has been refered to here a number of times as the candidate who will bring the Greens out. How many did Nader get? Did I miss 100Million people?

49% of voting-age people stayed home in 2000, a percentage comparable to the percentage that usually stays home.

In the middle of Clinton's term, when people should have been at their happiest, 45% of respondents in NORC's General Social Survey expressed deep dissatisfaction with the US system.

In that same survey, majorities --sometimes approaching consensus-- favor what we usually think of as leftist policies: universal healthcare, support for the elderly, universal education, a benefit during times of unemployment, etc.

The candidates offered by the two corporate parties are rightwing and far-rightwing.

Putting that all together, the only rational conclusion is that the people who aren't voting are staying home because there is no candidate who's offering anything but the rightwing status quo.

It's not rocket science.


(If you want to examine the survey, btw, you can find a copy at any large academic library. The GSS is developed with the advice of hundreds of sociologists and is administered every 2 years. In 2002, it had 4200 items and was administered to a sample of over 40 thousand people. Its accuracy makes the poll-a-minnit surveys from outfits like Gallup and Zogby look like somebody asking a couple guys down at the bar what they think)

Good thing it isn't rocket science because you seem to be dazled by the NORC survey. I happen to be quite familiar with it and don't need to go to the library (you can download much of it). Let's review:

"45% express dissatisfaction with the US system." So they must be liberals? They couldn't be dissatisfied for other reasons than you are? With literally hundreds of NORC questions to choose from you couldn't narrow it down some? More importantly, I'm uncertain how you are differentiating etween those who vote and those who don't. Nothing in the survey implies that conclusion.

Let's look at the "leftist policies" they "favor". Keeping in mind that it's how the question is asked that's important:

They support "Universal Healthcare"? Do you suppose that means so-called "socialized" medicine? I'll give you a hint - there's another question in there that disproves that. It more likely means that the vast majority think everyone should get decent treatment and can not be turned away in need.

"Support for the elderly" - Phrased that way who could say no? But what does it mean? I suspect you could get the biggest right winger to say we should "support the elderly".

Universal Education - Again, we have that (unsuccessfully) every child has a right to a public education. Do you spin that to mean they all want dramatically increased school spending? By the Federal govt?

Unemployment Benefits? Does that mean more than we have now? or just a safety net for temporarily "down on their luck"? Does it translate to unlimited unemployment funds?


Let's look at some of the other questions I can steer you to. Answer these questions.

What percentage of people said we spent too little on "halting the rising crime rate"
What percentage said we spent too little/too much on welfare?
What percentage said a woman should be able to have an abortion in any situation for any reason?

And the big one: Under "ATTITUDES AND SELF-REPORTED LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATISM", what percentage of adults consider themselves "Extremely liberal, liberal, or slightly liberal" ? I'll give you a hint: It's consistently below the percentage who call themselves Moderate or Conservative.

There are plenty of questions in the NORC that imply a left leaning bent for the population. But there are just as many that belie that assumption. You just can't draw the conclusions you do.

The NORC has a “non-response” rate of around 25% (pretty good actually for a 90 min survey), but might not the 25% who are unwilling to talk to them make up a big chunk of the people who don’t vote? How do you know what they believe. (What preceeded was an entirely illogical argument – that happens to be structurally identical to your original point which was also illogical). But there is no evidence from the survey that says that those who don't vote are necessarily more or less liberal than those of us who do vote.

(edit) Where did you find it? I found some 1996 (same as my notes)

Now, I'm going to do some quoting and I think you should too, because so far all you've done is handwaving and innuendo.

My first item is strongly socialist: government creation of jobs.

Group: Here are some things the government might do for the economy. Circle one number for each action to show whether you are in favor of it or against it.

Item D. Government financing of projects to create new jobs.

Strongly in favor: 351, almost doubled since '83
In favor: 603, doubled since '82 (most of the increase since '88)
Neither in favor nor against: 197, down from '88, up from '83
Against: 112, mildly up since '83 (79 then)
Strongly against: 32, mildly up since '83 (23 then)
Don't know: 2 (doubled since '83)
No answer: 37, up almost 5x since '83 (8 then)

Look at that imbalance: 954 in favor or strongly in favor; 144 against or strongly against. Hell, even if we add in the uncaring, the pros are miles in front at 954 to 341. And remember, this was during Clinton's 'boom', when everyone should have been happy little capitalists.

Now you do one.

But go ahead, pick an item and tell us how it makes your case.

... that since the mid 90's, the percentage of people voting has not substantially changed, but the people within that group have become substantially more liberal?

That in the 90's there were lots of conservatives who wouldn't vote but now they do and are replaced with liberals?



I'll see about getting these to open at home. I think the reader runs in DOS and I've only used it before at work. I'll get back to you.

when I can get it.

...I'd like to see the 2000 survey, instead of '96 or '94.

But 1996 is the latest I can find, and (coincidentally) it also happens to be what my notes are from. So right now it's what there is.

The survey is being offered as documentation that the vast bulk of the 100Million adults who don't vote are liberals who feel left out by two flavors of conservative as their only choices.

If that is even close to true you would either see:

a) a big change in the number of people who don't vote or
b) the '94 numbers would document the same occurence.

Besides, '94 was the year everything went south (no pun intended :eyes:) for us and we lost the congress. There must have been as many disillusioned libersl not voting that year as any time in 40 years. Surely the '94 numbers would back that up?

If you're arguing for looking at the '94 data set, it's okay by me!

If you're arguing for something else, you'll have to be more clear.

On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to . . .

C. Provide health care for the sick.

478 Definitely should be (doubled since '83)
572 Probably should be (not quite doubled)
145 Probably should not be (up from 83)
46 Definitely should not be (up from 28)
35 Can't choose (up from 13)
56 No answer (up from 14)

1050 in favor, 191 against. That's very close to consensus. Even if we count the can't/won't says, it's still on the order of 4 out of 5.

That poll doesn't mean what you think it does. You read "provide health care for the sick" as (perhaps) a single payer system. The respondents may not (and when they were given specifics in the 90's they rejected it soundly - though on the backs of effective propoganda & spin). For instance, Medicare/Medicaid "provide health care for the sick". Maybe the repondents are thinking you're asking if we should get rid of that.

It also uses very "emotionally charged" language. What if you asked "should the government provide health care for those who are well?" (which is what a single payer system would be) You would get a substantially different answer. Should the Federal Government provide a benefit for the rich?

It also doesn't address "what kind of system" would they favor. If I support the current "system" where anyone can walk into an ER and get treated (in theory), I might answer "definitely should" even though I would never support what Kucinich might propose.

I see no evidence that I'm reading it wrong

You're "reading into it" which is different.

Every politician knows how to stick his finger in the wind and see which way it's blowing. When we tried a modified single-payer system we did NOT got huge percentages of people supporting it.

As I said, we already DO provide health care for the sick (we do a lousy job, but that's another discussion). You could easily read this question to say they support the current system. That's how you read the "capitalism" question.

Find me some item--hell, find me some ANYthing--that says people believe we have public/government-provided healthcare now! Hint: there wouldn't be a big hoohah if people thought it already existed.

And tell me when and where we ever had 'modified single-payer system'.

Citations, citations. We need citations, not bloviation.

It doesn't fit the description?

We never "had" a SP system. We proposed one early in Clinton's term. It was defeated due to overwhelming public outcry and was listed as a big reason we lost the congress. Did you see 100M liberal coming out to pull in that system Clinton wanted?

Sorry, you need to check your facts. The Clinton proposal was for a complex, expensive system that left the insurance companies with their hands in our pockets. It didn't begin to be single-payer. When Hightower asked Clinton why he hadn't proposed a simple SP system, Clinton replied that he thought the hands-in-our-pockets one would be easier to sell.

than it was. A single payer system would have resembled the mocked up one they put forward as our plan. And the demonization worked marvelously, people hated it.

For instance: It wasn't really "putting one sixth of the GDP into government-run health care" but a SP sytem actually would.

The polls were innacurate for using agains the CLinton plan because the other side sold it as what it wasn't. Interestingly enough, they ARE accurate for this discussion because the more liberal proposal WOULD be what they were polling. People did not respond the way you suggest this poll implies they would.

You're coming out with the most fantastic unsupported rubbish, and you go on handwaving your way no matter what I say. You say Clinton put forward an SP plan, I refute that, and you go on just as though what I said proved your point. Sorry, I stopped having patience with that kind of game when I was about 12.

Are you joking? Those are among the best-supported programs in the country.

If the government had to choose between keeping down inflation or keeping down unemployment to which do you think it should give highest priority?

Even though Clinton was banging on the pan for keeping down inflation, and it was in the middle of the 'boom', a slight majority (596 to 528) preferred keeping down unemployment instead.

This is largely an educational issue. People see unemployment personally, but usually miss the terror that inflation can be. But how is it a liberal issue?

I'm dying to know: Which one should I be choosing in order to be a liberal??? I assure you, 6% inflation is a hell of a lot deadlier than 6% unemployment.

The question is a difficult one because of the technical component, but at the end of the day people understand jobs. Jobs is personal, and people responded accordingly despite all the anti-inflation (which very definitely is conservative!) hoohah.

Clinton's primary fiscal policy was the reduction of inflation. It remained the Federal government's principle goal for the Federal Reserve.

And it was the right decision to make. High inflation is more devestating overall than unemployment. I know plenty of liberal economists who are inflation-hawks.

Of course, keeping both down (as he did) is best of all!

I said ANTI-inflation is the conservatives' position. Inflation cheapens the value of money, which means the poor can repay loans more easily (so long as the inflationary cycle doesn't go mad).

Again, a very socialist item:

On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to . . .

I. Provide decent housing for those who can't afford it.

Definitely should be: 240 (virtually the same as in '83
Probably should be: 572 (down slightly)
Probably should not be: 295 (up slightly)
Definitely should not be: 106 (almost doubled)
Don't know: 61 (up slightly)
No answer: 58 (up somewhat)

Although the trend is downward for this, it was still supported by a very large margin: 812 to 311, a factor of 2.6

On the whole, do you think our economic system is...

(this was a new item in '96, so there was no trend)

The best system we could possibly have? 104
Basically okay but in need of some tinkering? 639
In need of some fundamental changes? 537
Needing to be replaced by some other system? 113
Don't know 43
No answer 8

Note that more people thought--even during Clinton's 'boom'--that capitalism wants replacing than believed it the best system we could have. I doubt the malcontents were pining for fascism.

This question is not "anti-capitalistic".

1) The majority said the current system was basically OK.

2) "Fundamental change" could mean something very different from "dum capitalism for socialism". It likely means "force corporattions to accurately report their earnings" or "fix accounting standards" or even "get rid of minimum wage".

This does not mean people want/don't want capitalism. "Our system" is a subset of capitalism. There are dozens of "fundamental changes" for good and bad that don't take us out of capitalism.

Note the pitifully poor sample who said it needed to be scrapped for something else.

If our economic system wasn't 'Capitalism' in 1996, what was it?

"fundamental change" does NOT mean "move to socialism". If the question had been "which do you support 'capitalism' or 'socialism'?" you wouldn't have gotten 10%. You can't read words into it.

To be blunt I strongly support "fundamental change" to our "existing system", but would never vote for a candidate who proposed "pseudo socialism". I prefer " capitalism with substantial social safety nets". I would either not vote, or find a third party.

The only thing I've said is that nearly half want fundamental changes or the system scrapped. And there is zero evidence that the 'fundamental changes' desired are toward the right.

If you think I've said something else without labelling it interpretation, quote me.

There is "zero evidence that the fundamental changes desired are towards the right."

There is an equal amount of evidence suggesting it is toward the left.

And lumping those two columns in together is inapropriate. "System scrapped" is an insignificant percentage.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm trying to avoid you putting them in the mouths of 100Million people.

What do you suppose the support for public healthcare etc. are all about then? When people support leftist positions that are not now public policy, how can you possibly imagine that desired changes are not toward those positions? 'Oh yes, I really think that if I get sick I should be able to get government-provided healthcare, but I oppose making it public policy.' Sorry, that makes no sense at all.

The last time this item was given was in '88, so it's a little stale

What do you think the government's role in each of these industries should be.

A. Electric power.

Own it: 63
Control prices and profits but not own it: 618
Neither own it nor control its prices and profits: 366
Can't choose: 122
No answer: 48

Overwelming support for limiting profits, some support for public power.

Again, this item is stale (last appeared in '83)

Own it 60
Control prices and profits but not own it 291
Neither own it nor control its prices and profits 261
Can't choose 49
No answer 16

Again, majority support for regulation, some for ownership

The steel industry.

Again, a stale item (last administration '88)

Here there is a moderately strong minority (38%) in favor of ownership or profit regulation ( 21 own, 364 regulate profit, 623 hands off)

Again a stale item ('88)

Banking and insurance.

Own it 43
Control prices and profits but not own it 526
Neither own it nor control its prices and profits 437
Can't choose 164
No answer 15


Again, a majority in favor of either ownership or profit regulation

(I wish they'd called out banks and insurance separately...I'll have to look at that item rationale)

THE VAST MAJORITY either support no regulation or some regulation on these industries.

A tiny number (in this particularly) support the government owning the banks - but you list it as "ownership or profit regulation" though less than 4% said ownership.

Public transportation is a different issue. And, in most cases, is what we already have. That, again, is not evidence of latent liberalism.

That's a silly place to draw the line, isn't it? The rightwing position is no regulation. It's the left that want regulation either alone or as a consequence of ownership. Why would you draw the line where you did? To say that it's only a tiny minority who want ownership? I'd have thought the number did that. So what's your point?

You pick which position is "conservative" and see that the poll does not support it.

Plenty of conservatives support regulating banks heavily - we've got all your money and we make more of it than the printing presses do. I've dealt personally with conservative AND liberal politicians on banking regulations and proposed regulations for years. The republicans have never proposed "no regulations". The question is always "which" and "how much" not "whether".

Lots of conservatives in the NORC survey could have picked that one. My wife gives me a hard time on banking regulations all the time and she makes Rush look like a liberal.

My point was that your bundling was vapid. 'People want to drink some beer or no beer'. Yeah? So?

I'm reading the plain words. If you think everyone is understanding these questions in a coded way, then you need to offer some evidence beyond your own assertions.

Again stale ('83)

The automobile industry.

Own it 14
Control prices and profits but not own it 226
Neither own it nor control its prices and profits 373
Can't choose 46
No answer 18

Again, we have a strong (39%) minority wanting public ownership or at least profit regulation.

We are faced with many problems in this country, none of which can be solved easily or inexpensively. I'm going to name some of these problems, and for each one I'd like you to tell me whether you think we're spending too much money on it, too little money, or about the right amount. Are we spending too much money, too little money, or about the right amount on...

M. Social Security

Too little 1578 (up a little from '96, doubled from '93)
About right 903 (down a little from '96, up 50% from '93 )
Too much 177 (down a little from '96, doubled from '93)
Don't know 161 (same in '96, up aboud 50% from '93)
No answer 13 (down from 63 in '96, 44 in '93)

Here we have people supporting more rather than less ss spending by a factor of almost 10, and more rather than the same by about 2:1.

Again you read into the numbers what you want to see. You assume conservatives are for spending less, liberals for spending more - therefore all those people who said we spend "too little" must be liberals. What you miss is that most people think we're spending too little (they just disagree how we ought to spend the money).

Those numbers are interesting (though I find it hard to believe that "too little" "about right" , "too much" and "don't know" are all up substantially from '93. You suppose maybe they interviewed more people? Or you misread the numbers?

Well this ( http://web.bryant.edu/~gcarter/home/Pearson%20Issue%20of%20the%20Month/november%202000/election.htm ) website breaks it down by party.

Democrats Republicans
Too Much 4.3% 10.0%
About Right 31.2% 39.1%
Too Little 64.5% 50.9%

This is an example of what I talked about with "capitalism" and a couple others. You mislabel a position as "liberal" or "conservative" when the questions are not phrased for that. Ask this question "would you support a 3% increase in payroll taxes to insure long-term safety of Social Security or would prefer raising the reitrement age to 'x'?" and you can make that call if it's still 2-1.

Notice on the same page that almost a plurality of DEMOCRATS say we "spend too much" on welfare. and both parties say we spend too little on public Health (you read the non party-affiliated numbers as proving they must all be liberals).

This was from the 1998 survey, so it may not match your numbers.

This whole thread is about whether we can elect Dennis.

My contention is that something approaching 49% of the population is available to Dennis if we can convince them they can make a difference in their own lives by voting, specifically by voting for Dennis as the candidate offering the most change.

The reason these people are available (as I've already argued) is that there is a big mapping between the 49% who sit home and the 45% who are dissatisfied with the status quo. They are disaffected because they want policies that aren't on offer, and they sit home because between Right and Far Right they see no realistic prospect of their vote buying them anything.

But I'm not labeling people 'liberal' according to whether they're Democrats, but according to whether the policies they want are pro working people. I'd hope it would be obvious that if we get 70 or 80 or 90% in favor of something, it's not all coming from one political party!

Dennis, the alleged 'fringe leftie', gets plenty cross-party support in his district because he addresses common human needs. He doesn't talk about cutting capital gains taxes which affect the wealthiest 10%, he talks about providing non-profit universal healthcare, reducing the pensionable age, etc, which affect the other 90% of us. Most people who want to wreck social security are almost surely Republicans, but that doesn't mean most Republicans want to wreck social security. As you note, most actually support more spending. And that's because they depend on social security too and they're not unaware of that fact. But more spending is a 'liberal' position for the purposes of electing Dennis, even if it's advocated by someone whose politics generally are to the right of Chinghiz Khan.

You repeatedly claim that I'm misinterpreting, reading-in, etc. You claim that the words shouldn't be read for their simple meaning, but should be understood in some coded way. That's not persuasive. You or anyone can handwave any damnfool thing, but until you can support it with something more than arm movement, good science dictates that we assume straightforwardness.

This is a much better argument. It boils down to "I belive DK really connects with people if only they would give him a chance" combined with "people don't realize just how much they agree with Democrats, we aren't selling our message properly".

But the other side makes the same argument and with the same data. "if people really understood how much they line up with us and how little they line up with the Democrats...blah blah"

If you look at post #107 you'll see a list similar to the one you posted, but all of them can be as easily spun as "the public is conservative" as your could be read the other way.

If you were to go out on the street and ask people how they self-identify, I'm sure you'd find a large number who identify themselves as "conservative".

However, if next ask those self-identified conservatives for their views on single-payer healthcare, the environment, benefits for unemployment, Social Security, etc. you'll probably find that half of them hold "liberal" views on these issues.

Self-identification doesn't amount to jack when you actually compare it to peoples' views on the issues important to them.

They don't in fact hold more liberal views than the rest of the population.

I just don't buy that they were wrong about their own beliefs AND when asked said they would have voted for Reagan in 84 and Bush in 88... yet these are a vast pool of unclaimed voters waiting for Kucinich to snap them up?

They don't in fact hold more liberal views than the rest of the population. There are plenty of similar questions that can be spun the other way.

It is wishfull thinking to say "everyone REALLY agrees with me, they just don't know it"

I just don't buy that they were wrong about their own beliefs AND when asked said they would have voted for Reagan in 84 and Bush in 88... yet these are a vast pool of unclaimed voters waiting for Kucinich to snap them up?

You've misread/mistated what I said. You've taken both sides of the argument and you've completely ignored some of the biggest points. But, hey - that's what we're here for right? You are badly misinterpreting the questions you've posted, but I got tired of correcting you (does it seem like I'm baiting you? No offense, I just want to make sure you read this whole post. The slam dunk is at the end, but I want to build up to it).

The point under discussion is whether "we know the 100M voters who stay home are leftists" ok? Ignore the rest of the posts and respond to these numbers (All from NORC - most from the 1994 survey)

"It is the responsibility of government to reduce the differences in income between those with high incomes and those with low incomes" Less than 33% agree. (Sound liberal to you?)

What percentage disagree that with the following federal priorities?
Cut personal income taxes 33%
Reform welfare 7%
Reform Medicare 27%

What percentage "Support death penalty" ? 79%

What percentage agree with the statement "Sexual relations between two adults of the same sex is?" 67% “always wrong” 23% “Not wrong”

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of feminists?
Men 37/42 F/U Women 32/43 F/U

1996 Do you consider yourself a feminist Yes = 21%-30% depending on age.

Attitudes about Supreme Court Ban on Required Bible Prayer in Schools.
“Do you approve of the Supreme court ban on Bible prayer in schools?”
Approve 39 Disapprove 61

A clip straight from the NORC website:

"Support for legalizing abortion varies greatly according to various circumstances. Support is high (typically 75 to 90%) when the pregnancy threatens the woman's health, involves a serious birth defect, or resulted from rape (See Table 1). But the public is about evenly split (typically 40-50% for allowing abortions) when the abortion is sought because the woman is unmarried, unable to afford more children, or when the woman is "married and does not want any more children." Approval is the lowest (33-45%) for when "the woman wants it for any reason" (Table 2)."

How many of these fit your thesis??

OK. Ready for the big ones?

Here’s a good one: “Who did you vote for in 1980” Carter 1817 Reagan 1764

“Who did you vote for in 1980” Mondale 1961 Reagan 2911

Here’s the critical ones (asked of people who did not vote):

None of your stats deal with who votes vs. who does not (and you ignored that once or twice) but these do.

“If you had voted that year, who would you have voted for? Mondale 782 Reagan 1202

“If you had voted that year, who would you have voted for? Dukakis 1406 Bush 1090


So Maired, the real question is: "If the NORC data clearly shows that the people who don't vote are clearly leftists... don't you think it's odd a majority of them would have voted for Reagan and Bush"???


Important disclaimer for other readers: It is not my contention that non-voters are conservatives either. I suspect that statisticly they look like everyone else.

We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. I'm going to show you a seven-point scale on
which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal--point 1--to extremely
conservative-- point 7. Where would you place yourself on this scale?

These numbers are for 2000 (the year we could have used a couple more voters).

Extremely liberal 107
Liberal 308
Slightly liberal 285
Moderate, middle of the road 1,054
Slightly conservative 390
Conservative 411
Extremely conservative 89


So: Is it your theory that they are lying? Or too stupid to know which category they fit in?

That's a labeling question, not a values question. And as No Name has pointed out, labels often correlate poorly with values. A good example of that is the 'feminist' label--plenty younger women reject the label while taking the values as given.

Kucinich has self identified himself as progressive and people have self-identified themselves as, well, "not".

Telling them they're wrong tends to leave you at 2%

Chomsky's favorite error--favorite because of how often he warns against it, not because he ever makes it--is looking at some question such as 'do you want to pay more tax' in isolation.

And as NNNS points out in another response, self-labelling is hardly ever meaningful.

------------------------------------------

"It is the responsibility of government to reduce the differences in income between those with high incomes and those with low incomes" Less than 33% agree. (Sound liberal to you?)

Perhaps you're not reading the numbers correctly? Compare your 33% to these 1998 numbers:

On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to . . .

G. Reduce income differences between the rich and poor.

Definitely should be 216
Probably should be 332
Probably should not be 299
Definitely should not be 321
Can't choose 97
No answer 19


Job creation can be an indirect way to reduce income differences:
Here are some things the government might do for the economy. Circle one number for each action to show whether you are in favor of it or against it.

D. Government financing of projects to create new jobs.

Strongly in favor of 351
In favor of 603
Neither in favor nor against 195
Against 112
Strongly against 32
Don't know 2
No answer 0


There's also an item I found yesterday on taking care of the poor, but I can't find it again right now. It was clearly in favor of spending more on the poor.

--------------------------------------------------

What percentage disagree that with the following federal priorities?
Cut personal income taxes 33%
Reform welfare 7%
Reform Medicare 27%

These 3 are 'Chomsky error' ones, the first one being the classic. OF COURSE people want their taxes cut, when the question is asked in a vacuum. The other two are ambiguous. To 'reform' means to make better. What does 'make better' mean in these cases? We don't know--we have to look at other items to determine that. When we look at whether people are in favor of healthcare as a right, we see a huge support. When we look at support for the poor, we see

Do you agree or disagree.

F. The government should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed.

(this is stale: '87)

Strongly agree 56
Agree 128
Neither agree nor disagree 52
Disagree 25
Strongly disagree 3
Can't choose 9
No answer 6

and we see

I'd like to talk with you about issues some people tell us are important. Please look at CARD AU. Some people think that the government in Washington should do everything possible to improve the standard of living of all poor Americans; they are at Point 1 on this card. Other people think it is not the government's responsibility, and that each person should take care of himself; they are at Point 5.

From 1 through 5, the numbers in 1998 were
239 240 818 316 230, which means an overwhelming number believe 'the government' has at least some responsibility, and of the two polar positions, the govt-responsibility one is slightly larger.

and we see

Do you agree or disagree.

E. The government should spend less on benefits for the poor. (emphasis mine)

(stale item: '87)

Strongly agree: 10
Agree 20
Neutral 24
Disagree 126
Strongly disagree 85
Can't say 7
No response7


and we see (1996 data)

Do you agree or disagree.

A. Differences in income in America are too large.

Strongly agree 464
Agree 467
Neither agree nor disagree 178
Disagree 169
Strongly disagree 117
Can't say 41
No answer 8

-----------------------------------------

I think most of your objections are like the ones I've responded to here, so I won't take the time to refute them all unless other people want me to.

These 3 are 'Chomsky error' ones, the first one being the classic. OF COURSE people want their taxes cut, when the question is asked in a vacuum.

It's time to get my family up, so I won't waste too much time. But you just got my point.

These were all examples of polling that could be misread the way I pointed out you were. Call the "Chomsky" if you like.

Of course people want to give health care to the poor
Of course people want to take care of seniors

When the question is asked in a vacuum.

It doesn't make them liberals. Especially when they say "If I had voted, I would have voted for Reagan" in bigger numbers than those who actually did.

When I look at the IF80WHO variable, I clearly get Carter over Reagan on all 3 administrations

When I look at the IF92WHO, I clearly get Clinton over Bush on all 4 administrations

And the IF96WHO variable shows Clinton hugely over Bush on the only administration.


What we're seeing is people responding to the functional equivalent of 'if you had been forced to choose between the candidates on offer, which would you have picked?' What they actually chose was 'none of the above'.

among likely Democratic primary voters. I believe a lot of that can change if Kucinich would focus on having the "stature" of a world leader. Whether there is sufficient time to change this is a separate question. The 'idealism' and 'purity' Kucinich exudes, regardless if it is good or bad, doesn't resonate with Democratic voters who want to win this election. In addition, Kucinich's attacks on other Democrats have to appear rational and not fanatical or ideological, or his negatives will remain high.

Take the "Department of Peace," for instance. It is has an idealistic flower-power name. Why not take the same idea, which I believe is respectable, and give it a more authoritative sounding title? This is one instance of the pragmatic, strategic aspect that is absent from Kucinich's politics. While idealism is Kucinich's greatest strength as a candidate, it is comcomitantly his greatest weakness.

The fear prejudice empowers the military-industrial complex which the USA has become.

We need to get off the WAR mentality and start thinking creatively about "how to make peace". As someone said before (not here), we have military academies all over the country, but no "peace academies". We must change the way we think!