Just out of curiousity, who did you vote for in the 2004 Primaries?

And, who are you thinking about voting for in '08?

I voted for Dennis Kucinich.

It's too early for me to really make up my mind on anybody for '08, nobody is saying they will run yet, however I like Russ Feingold a lot. I also like Wes Clark quite a bit, Dk of course. Hillary probably would never get my primary vote, but if she were to get the nomination I would happily vote for her in the G.E.. Edwards and Kerry are both great too.

Brian Schweitzer would never run, but if he did I'd vote for him for sure.

and, like you, am undecided about 08. Way too early, imo, to be in strong support of any candidate.

but I wanted DEAN.

But he has no chance in hell of making it to the GE.

I didn't know who Kerry was back in 2004.

But I also helped Kucinich since I was home in Ohio at that time. Thought he might run for governor.

My first choice was actually Kucinich, but I vote strategically in primaries, and I knew full well he had no chance at all in Oklahoma. I had hope, at the time, that Dean might, and I wasn't enamored with Kerry or Clark, who were the other two possibles, at the time.

As for making up my mind about '08, I am giving it no thought at all at this point because I feel it is counter-productive to do so. We have midterms coming up, and those are at least as important.

the primaries, I figured Kerry would and I wanted Edwards as his running mate.
I'd vote for Feingold because I trust him to put people over politics.

(I would have voted for him even if I lived in Iowa, though)

I didn't vote becuse it didn't matter.
In 2008, Feingold.

I love Russ but he has no chance as a 2 time divorsee...and I will not support anyone in Congress....too much baggage..Looks like Clark or Warner for me.

Maybe we ran into each other at the Convention and didn't even know it.:hi:

maybe?

With that said, I voted for John Edwards.

Kerry in Va. primary Feb. '04 and will vote for him again in "08.

as a delegate for Clark, and hope to do so again. There are a handful of others who I would consider supporting, but they'll have to go pretty far to supplant Clark in my estimation.

...and I was a delegate.

Cat In Seattle

second choice was edwards

For 2008, I am interested in the following people, in no particular order: Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and Mark Warner. Hillary seems like the most competent politician and campaigner of them. Warner could win us Virginia. Clark for his military resume and foreign policy. Edwards for his work on poverty. Feingold for his integrity and anti-war voice.

I would not vote for Kerry, Biden, or Kucinich in the primary.

Once the nominee is decided, they have my vote in the general election.

Right now, I'm leaning toward Clark in '08, but I'm open.

Also volunteered for Kathleen Teahan and Mark Chaupette.

I don't know who I would vote for now. It's too soon to say who will even be available. I can tell you it sure as hell won't be Hillary.

He had already left the race by the time my primary was held, but I wanted the honor at least once before the election was over.

TC

and my daughter voted for Kerry in Missouri........

My support went Graham, Dean, Edwards, Kerry as my candidates successively dropped out. By the time I got to vote, Kerry was the only one still in the race.

if they're on the ballot.

However, looks like the next election is already front loaded for Clinton unfortunately, and I think that will be a huge mistake not only for the country but for the Democratic party on the whole, because it's a kin to a celebrating dynasties and would have hoped that truly thinking people in this party would do everything in their power to avoid that kind of paradigm. And then of course, the dems won't win with Clinton against McCain

unfortunately looks like it will be another decade or longer before this party figures out the kind of leadership we need in the executive office.

It was so thrilling when he came in second in Iowa. Then when Kerry named him VP, those were the most heady days since the Clinton/Gore "don't stop thinking about tomorrow".

Remember the hope we had back then...all the way till about 10:00 election night.

he was still on the ballot. I was still half sheeple, and hadn't looked into much yet. Clark had one good line I liked, so I voted for him. Also, my dad had just died, and he'd liked Clark too. So it was a meaningless vote, but one for the both of us.

I like Kerry. I would also vote for Clark or Feingold.

but I voted for Clark, anyway. Besides, I thought a general would help us with our fear factor. After 9/11 we as a nation had no right to sing "...land of the free and the home of the brave." We weren't either.
There was 1 reason i didn't vote for Kucinich--I didn't want to lose his moral voice in congress. And I didn't vote for Dean because his state had too few electorial votes to be helpful to him.

primaries the MSM had picked Kerry as our candidate. My vote was meaningless by then but it was a protest against Kerry. I thought Kerry was a poor candidate and the Repugs would destroy him on his Vietnam record. Then Kerry gave them even more fuel when he made that statement that I voted for the war before I voted against it. That showed me Kerry had no backbone. I did vote for Kerry in the general election only because I was ABB. In "08" maybe Clark defiantly not Clinton, Gore or Kerry.

Don't know who I'd vote for in three years.

of course! :hi:

It was over by New York but it still felt good to actually vote for him at least that once. I was in NH the weekend before the primary working for the campaign and I wrote a few letters to Iowa and donated nearly $200 too. Man NH in January is DAMN cold. Standing around in 2 degree weather waving signs yikes.

even though he had dropped out.

And yeah, New Hampshire and Iowa are TOO COLD!!!!

The party needs to move the primaries to Florida and Hawaii! ;)

and Kerry in the stolen election (general).

...and its too soon, I think, to pick a candidate in '08. It will probably be between Edwards, Clinton, Gore, and Clark.

I isolated him two years in advance and it was the correct handicap. No one in our crop was ideal but Edwards had the likability aspect and therefore the best chance to sway the critical voting groups and evict an incumbent.

For 2008 I currently prefer Warner and the chance to flop the margin for error nemesis in our favor for a change.

in '02. I immediately liked him. Always was a big fan, I didn't vote for him but I just thought the guy had the potential to be something special.

Just for curiousity sake. I would guess Dean will be tops....

Edit: Clark, of course!

:)

something about Edwards, even now makes me feel dare i say---hopeful?

There were seven primaries across the country that day... the Eastern time zone polls didn't open until 7am, and our Missouri polls opened at 6am. SO, when they were loose with the timing at our polling place, we got to vote a couple of minutes early. We'd like to remain convinced and proud that across the country, we were the first to vote for Wes Clark that day (if you should know otherwise, it's not necessary to burst our little bubble).

More important, in 2008 we'll both be first at the polls in both the primaries AND the general election to vote Clark into the White House(having also put in plenty of hours and dollars to do our part to get him there). Of course, if we should have to wait until midnight to cast our votes, we'll still be there.

you are hardcore, my man. Hardcore. :)

of freinds.... But by the time it got to Ohio, it was all over anyway...

I liked Clark a lot. I liked several of the candidates, but in the end I went with DK.

as far as I know, Joe Biden is the only person who has actually said he's running. And Satan will be running an ice-cream stand before I vote for that tutu wearing MBNA loving sellout.

It's way too early for 2008 but I sometimes claim to be organizing Austin4Biden just to piss people off.

Also, my state had its primary after he dropped out and it was on Super Tuesday.

In '08 I will either for Mark Warner or for Clark.

My primary was way late and meaningless so I voted for the best guy available.

or I should say I'm leaning that way.

If Schweitzer runs, that may make things interesting.

love DK, Leesa, I just love the man! I was so proud to vote for him, even though, he didn't have a prayer. I just did it because I felt that was the right thing to do, I put a lot of thought into it, as well. He's a great man for sure. You know, those people who voted on spin and hate issues, the Bush voters by and large, they did the bad thing for America and the World, but I know that in voting for DK I at least did the right thing.

eom

And I would do it again and again.

I will always back him, too.
But I think he will stick with his promise to remain as Chair, and a very FINE Chairman he is!

He was still on the ballot and hadn't quite stopped his campaign at that point.

but he was out by the time I got to vote. So I voted for Kerry over Edwards.

:headbang:

Nevermind.

:)

I love you too.. :hug:

with all my heart. :)


:hi: :hug:

So how's the weather?

and undecided.

If Clark doesn't run, I'm a free agent!

Will vote for the smartest and the toughest based on 2008 facts on the ground...and not a 1993 strategy!

was, Kerry had it tied up so I didn't want my vote to be for nothing. But I did then support Kerry 100% and believe he was truly the winner.

Edwards and would do it again

I'm a big Edwards fan myself. :hi:

"It was wrong to go in, and it is wrong to stay in."

"Indifference is a weapon of mass destruction."

"We are already paying for universal health care; we just aren't getting it."

Feingold or Obama '08

It is too early for me to seriously consider who I will back in 2008. I do know this: I have donated to the campaigns of more than 20 democrats who are on the national level (including several who ran in the primaries). I get a lot of requests for donations today. I have a simple message, which I type up and send in their SASEs, either with or without a check .... and that is that while I will vote almost exclusively for democrats, I will only invest money and time in assisting those with a strong anti-war message.

I think that, due to the severe damage that Bush/Cheney has done, the democrats have to put up a ticket with a president who is going to take on the foreign policy issues, and a vice president who can handle domestic issues. We need a coordinated team approach. In the best of times times, the job of president is too much for one person; today, we face crises at home and abroad.

If I were to give an example of a strong ticket, I'd say Clark/Edwards. But I would also include a few of the more radical voices as part of the administration. And I would tap talent that even the democratic party has never had the wisdom to use.

that wouldn't be a bad pair to take care of those respective issues either. Clark for foreign policy and Edwards for domestic.

I wouldn't necessarily say I am out and out anti-war. I am anti-stupidity and the war in Iraq was surely stupid. Actually, I'm pretty much a social constructivist. I believe that values, morality and international institutions should be a big part of foreign policy. Human rights for example, would be a major precedent. So, even if a candidate isn't absolutely anti-war, I can live with voting for someone who shows some of those same moral tenets.

I'm not anti-war in all situations. I was speaking of the war in Iraq. I believe in self-defense, and I believe in some situations, it is important to defend others. I would exclude Halliburton and Dick Cheney. (grin)

More, while I am vocal in my belief that we should get out of Iraq today, I realize that someone like Wes Clark knows more about military issues than I do. I believe that when more people at the grass roots level demand an end to the war in Iraq, more congressional leaders will follow. And, when that happens, it will become more likely that a Wes Clark will be recognized as the most capable person to led this effort.

Even though I can't count all the anti war demonstrations I've been to in my life, I still regret one "war" that did not happen. I deeply regret that the United States didn't show more moral leadership and failed to send 10,000 soldiers into Rwanda to stop the Genocide there. That is all it would have taken to save half a million lives.

By the time the Texas primary rolled around, Clark had dropped out.

I'm leaning towards Clark but I don't even know if he's running. It's so early at this point. I said in a different thread that the actions and words of the 2008 candidates will be judged by how they help their fellow Democrats in 2006.

My biggest 2008 primary rule: Republican Lite need not apply.

After roughly 100 DU'ers have posted, and about 2/3rds of them indicating their vote, we can compare DUers to real world:

Here are the candidates in order of most DU votes to least, followed by the number of DU votes they got. The next three columns are the % of DU votes they got, the % votes they got in the primaries, and the the difference between DU votes and actual priary votes. The two people with the most real world votes, got the least on DU. Dean had the biggest difference in DU votes and real world votes.

Dean.........20....30.3%......5.7%.........24.6%
Kucinich....17....25.8%......3.9%.........21.9%
Clark.........14....21.2%......3.5%.........17.7%
Edwards.....9.....13.6%......19.4%.......-5.8%
Kerry..........6.....9.1%........60.8%......-51.7%

On Edit: The candidates in order of the percentage differnce between real world primary votes and DU primary votes:

Kucinich's DU support is 660% higher on DU than in real world
Clark's is 606%
Dean 532%
Edwards' DU support is 70% of his real world support
Kerry's DU percentage is only 15% of his real world 2004 support.

It was way too late to make a difference at that point, but it didn't hurt Kerry any either. Felt good to stand for him, no matter how futile.

I'll be supporting Clark in '08 if he decides to run. If he doesn't, I'm not sure yet whom I'll vote for (we'll have a primary in 2008). I like most of the Dems who are making noises like they might run and there are only one or two I would actively work against, altho I'd probably bite the bullet and vote for any Dem in the GE.

John Edwards!!

And I'm A Liberal!!!

Go Johnny Go!

By the time the primary season FINALLY got around to us out here in CA, it was all over. Didn't matter to me. I STILL voted for Howard Dean. I WOULD STILL VOTE FOR HOWARD DEAN.

link followed by Edwards, followed by Kucinich followed by Dean followed by SHarpton.

and Edwards and Clark also had 1 win.

The powers that be wanted to have a front runner as early as possible. Thus, for many voters, by the time they had the chance to cast their preference, the outcome was already decided.

While I participated in the Minnesota caucus, casting my preference for John Edwards, who won both our caucus and the one next door - he withdrew from the race.

Six months earlier I listened to former Vice President Walter Mondale who expressed his strong wish that we settle on a candidate early. This, I suppose, to prevent too many fights between fellow candidates that could be used later in the race, and to conserve resources to fight the Republican candidate.

I really hope that the proposal to have rotating primaries in block of states will become the norm.

As for 2008 - I am not going to make any decision until the candidates declare and present their platform. Don't forget - until the 2004 race started in earnest - Joe Lieberman topped all polls.

It's the progressivism, stupid.

Warner or Clark at this current time.

It is very important to me that our candidate is eloquent. It was one of the reasons I liked Kerry. Dean speaks too much like Bush for my liking. I cannot see myself supporting HRC because of her serious lack of involvement in the current fight. It is like she is waiting for the Dems to fight our way back in the majority in the Congress and country (80% done) and then she will swoop in and be the leader. Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Boxer and Conyers have been vocal and fighting. That is more to my liking. Not sure who I will support, but I am looking at who is willing to run when the road is uphill and not when the wind is at our back.

even though he'd stepped out of the primaries a month earlier.

Leaning Edwards this time...

After Kansas and New Hampshire had spoken, it was over.

Voted for Dean In the Missouri Primary even though I knew Kerry would be the nominee. I wanted to show my preference for him. For 2008 I am undecieded however In the primarys I will not be voting for
Hilary,Biden,Vilsack,or Bayh. If Gore were to run I defently will be for him.

when is their primary? I thought that was much later.

I knew Kerry was going to be the guy, yet I still stuck with DK. Over or not you can still vote your conscience. :)

... I meant Iowa. :(

typo! :)

Believe it or not, I voted for Kerry in Maryland. Now let me explain!!

It was then pretty clear it was Kerry's, but the media was making SO much noise about Edwards. And the day before the election, little Elfin
Bill Schneider said he thought Edwards might win in Maryland and start a roll. ("Watch Maryland!" he said.) I was with the General in supporting Kerry by then, so I voted for Kerry, but voted separately for Clark's electors.

As it happened, Kerry won pretty easily. I'm still pissed at Elfin Bill Watch Maryland Schneider. But I hope to have another chance to vote for the General.

that this will go into your "permanent record" ... ;-)

If it had looked like Kerry needed my primary vote I would have given it, but he didn't.

But I'm still mad at the Elf (or mad at myself for believing the Elf) because it would have been SOoooOOooo nice to leave the voting booth knowing I'd voted with more conviction than ever, without any compromise.

I voted for Kucinich when my turn came around.

I too hope to have an opportunity to vote for Clark, in a primary and in a general election.

I love him -- totally loved and cheered his statements in the debates.

I told Husb many times how I wish the world were ready for him. It'll be a much better day when someone like Kucinich will resonate with the public the way he should.

(Not that I see Clark as a compromise! I'm a lefty who thinks Kucinich represents an ideal progressive for tomorrow; Clark is exactly the progressive we need TODAY.)

Dean, 26, 27.7%, 5.7%, 22.0%, 485%
Kucinich, 20, 21.3%, 3.9%, 17.4%, 546%
Clark, 19, 20.2%, 3.5%, 16.7%, 578%
Edwards, 16, 17.0%, 19.4%, -2.4%, 88%
Kerry, 13, 13.8%, 60.8%, -47.0%, 23%

Dean is the most popular at DU:

Dean 26 votes (27.7%)
Kucinich 20 votes (21.3%)
Clark 19 votes (20.2%)
Edwards 16 votes (17.0%)
Kerry 13 votes (13.8%)

Kerry was most popular in the primaries:

Kerry - 60.8%
Edwards - 19.4%
Dean - 5.7%
Kucinich - 3.9%
Clark - 3.5%

Measured by the degree to which a candidate's DU popluarity exceeds their primary support (DU %/Primary %)

Clark - 578%
Kucinich - 546%
Dean - 485%
Edwards - 88%
Kerry - 23%

stats whiz extraordinaire! :)

got in primaries in the primaries and NOT how votes they got at DU, but to the ratio of their DU votes to their primary votes. So the fewer votes a candidate got in the primaries, the more out of proportion the DU representation is.

This, I guess, could be explained by this: Kerry voters don't feel they have anything to prove. Either they know their guy is popular, or they think he's not running. But the worse the candidate did in the primaries, the more that person's supporters feel they need to promote the candidate. But then again, nobody defends or promotes Kucinich, and he's the second most out-of proportion candidate (on the positive side)

I wrote this without double checking the numbers, so my analysis could be off.

The real world/DU percentages would not be quite so wildly off if you tabulated percentages of the votes actually cast only in contests in which the candidates were actually still running. Edwards Kerry and Kucinich were actively campaigning through many more races than Dean or Clark. Kerry and Edwards did get significantly more actual votes than Dean or Clark in the States where all these men were still active candidates at the time of the votes, but not by anywhere near the margins that your figures reflect. Your figures include a lot of big population states like California and New York plus a host of smaller contests, none of which Dean or Clark were still candidates in.

Other than that, carry on. It is still interesting and instructive.

voted for.

I'm comparing how DU'ers voted in the primray to how everyone else voted in the primary.

DU'ers had the same choice as everyone else, and, most likey, are distributed across the country the same way other voters are distributed.

You would expect that DU'ers -- given the same array of choices of candidates and strategies and a similar geographic distribution -- to have voted the same way everyone else did IF DU WERE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS A WHOLE.

Not only is there little direct correlation between the way DUers voted and the way everyone else voted, there seems to be a rough inverse correlation.

So, there's probably some interesting explanation as to why DU'ers when faced with the same array of choices made sellections so different from all other Democrats.

It seems like a lot of people say they chose Kucinich as an anti-Kerry vote. He was the only person who actively campaigned other than Kerry right up to the convention, so that makes sense. But you never see many posts about him here, so apparently people didn't like him so much as they just didn't like Kerry.

Dean was popular on the internet, so I'm not surprised he's disproportionately represented here.

Given that Clark gets over a 100 votes in DU polls, it's interesting that there arent' 100 people who voted for him in the primaries. Some say they made an anti-Edwards vote for Kerry, or voted for Kucinich. However, I think a couple wrote Clark in.

Dean voters seem completely unencumbered by the fact that Dean dropped out or was not longer in contention, or by a fear of Edwards. So, that might explain why Dean's vote total at DU is higher than Clark's.

That's why I said your points are valid. The only statistic I was calling into focus was your column for the percentage of votes each candidate actually won in the primaries, as a factoid in and of itself. It skews the perception in my opinion to make it seem that both Dean and Clark, to use the two most obvious examples, were less popular with the general primary voting public than they actually were. I don't have it up on my screen right now, but I believe that the figures for both men were at under 5% of the actual votes, and I was pointing out that that can be misleading as an indicator of their actual popularity with real primary voters.

Many of the votes that Kerry Edwards and Kucinich have included in their real tallies are votes that were originally intended for a candidate who had already dropped out of the race, and they also include voters who made up their minds only after those were the only choices left in front of them. Hence showing the actual 2004 votes as a baseline to gage how popular Dean and Clark were with the general public compared to how popular Kerry and Edwards were, is misleading. Kerry and Edwards were more popular than Dean and Clark, but not by anywhere near those ratios if you only look at the races where Dean and Clark were also still declared candidates.

It is true that DU partisans tend to be more loyal to their guy than the average Democrat, so there were a lot of people like me who still voted for their preferred candidate even after they dropped out of the race, like I did in NY for Clark. And that shows up in your statistics and speaks to the larger point you were making. The average primary voter though will choose only from the list of those who are still running for the office, which contributed to the final totals for Kerry Edwards and Kucinich..

in which I did.

I'm not making claims about the relative popularity of the candidates. I'm commenting entirely on the makeup of the DU community and how dissimilar it is to the larger Democratic community.

I'm not criticizing the difference. I'm just wondering what explains it.

I also had to include the "factoid" of the total primary votes because I needed to compare it to the subset of DU primary votes for that candidate. That's the crux of the comparison.

If you want to compare who DU'ers would have voted for in the primary with who all Democrats would have voted for if the primary if all candidates were available and strategic voting wasn't an issue, go for it. But does the data exist? Conveniently, we have precisely the data we need to compare actual primary votes of all voters with a, perhaps, statistically significant number of DU'ers actual primary votes.

Either way, I think that the lesson would be the same: Kerry's DU support would be a fraction of his total support, Edwards would be about 1:1, and Dean, Clark and Kucinich would have significantly more support at DU than in the real world.

(total percentage of votes received during the primary season) taken out of context can be misleading, which it can be. You were using that statistic in the context of a larger study to make a valid point. Others could lift those statistics out of context and use them independent from this discussion to claim that both Dean and Clark were supported by less than 5% of the voters compared to many multiples higher support for Kerry and Edwards. In a highly technical sense that may be "true", but Clark for example was out there campaigning for Kerry for most of the Primaries, asking his supporters to vote for Kerry, and Dean suspended his campaign early, and then dropped it.

We both know that people pull statistics out of context all of the time around this joint, but I don't think you were doing that. Still, I wanted to put my observations on the record, so to speak, before someone else was tempted to do just that.

By the time many of us were able to vote in the primaries, our first-choice candidates were no longer campaigning. I worked for Clark, but voted in the primary for Kerry, for reasons stated above.

2004 was all about IOWA. Your statistics are meaningless.

Nice try, though.

DUers faced as well, so it's already part of the analysis.

running the longest (Kerry) is getting the fewest votes at DU.

Clark and Dean dropped out the earliest, and they're getting the most votes (along with Kucinich, who didn't drop out at all).

So, yes, having to vote for someone other than your first choice because your first choice isn't in the race means that this isn't really an accuratge reflection of popularity or who people really wanted to be president. However, it looks like the late-stage competitiveness (or viability) of a candidate didn't influence who DUers voted for, for the most part, except that it might explain why there was so many votes for Kucinich.

:hi:

into a numerical representation of what people are saying about themselves.

Not that it mattered by the time Iowa, et al. hogged the friggin' vote and made up our minds for us.

The first time I ever voted for a candidate that I REALLY liked.

I didn't care that he didn't have much hope of catching up with Kerry at that point. I wanted to send a message that the Democratic Party should be come more populist and less corporate.

Clark in 2008

In NY it didn't matter too much.

My state didn't have primaries, it had a caucus. It was also way late in the season when everyone else had dropped out of the race.

As you can probably tell, I'm a strong Clark supporter, but voting for him was not an option, so I went for Dennis.

Not only did I vote for him at the caucus level, I was a delegate for him through various different levels all the way up to the state convention. It was my first time participating in politics at that level, and I greatly valued the experience.

...Kerry was already a given, and I was FINE with that, but I actually voted for Kucinich because I wanted to stand up for at least his ideas being taken seriously. Slight steer to the left, y'know. :hi:

In '08, no idea, depends who's on the ballot, but I'd vote for Kerry with enthusiasm because I know more about him now than I did then, and the more I know, the better I like him. I'm also fine with Edwards or Feingold or Clark or maybe someone else who hasn't pulled out of the crowd yet (hands off my jr. Senator, please, he's too new to it, IMO). More lukewarm on Warner or Hillary but if that's who wins I guess I'll take 'em.

I agree with you on trying to push Obama into the ring at this stage. :)

My vote for Dean was, like yours, a stand of support even though it was already a done deal to go to Kerry.

As for 08, I'd vote for any of the above you mentioned with Feingold, Hillary, and Clark at the top. I'm still learning about Warner, but in terms of being able to win and being able to work with people from both sides of the aisle he has substantial creds.

Campaigned for Kerry/Edwards when they got the nomination.

I don't have a clue who I'll be casting my vote for in '08; there are no candidates to choose from at this point, as far as I know.

I have less than zero interest in Clinton, Clark, Edwards, or Kerry. I don't know enough about Feingold to comment. I have no idea who Brian Schweitzer is. If I'm just picking people based on who I'd like to see, I'd go with a Kucinich/Boxer ticket.

I had a tough time deciding between him and Howard Dean.

I wonder NOW, just how many people wish HE was Pres????

then I will be caught in my old ideological vs pragmatic tug of war trying to pick a progressive candidate I strongly believe in who I still think can win. Clark eliminates that problem for me. My mind is still open on alternatives to him if he doesn't run.

.

Edwards

Desperately hoping that Boxer or Conyers runs in '08

not sure yet. I like Clark, and he's got a good shot at my vote if he runs, but I'm not absolutely committed.

Wes Clark 2008

No idea who I'm backing in 2008, though. 2006 is a very big year for the DFL in Minnesota: all leg seats are up, as is a US Senate seat, as Mark Dayton is retiring. Consequently, most of our attention is directed that way right now.

Dean was still on the ballot, but I voted for the Rev. I had contributed to Dean and kept Dean stickers on my car until about October of 04.

By the time of the Maryland primary, the Kerry roll was in full swing, but he was just about my last choice of the primary candidates. I have yet to vote for anyone who has received the nomination.

By the time Wisconsin's primaries rolled around, it was Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Sharpton, and Kucinich remaining in the race.

I was torn between Dean and Kerry...but since it looked like Kerry was going to win the nomination, I voted for Dean because I knew it might be my only chance to vote for Howard Dean for political office...and the whole time, I consciously thought to myself, "I can vote for Kerry in November." And I did.

He was my first choice.

As for 2008, I have made no decisions. It's not as though I know who's going to be on the ballot or what other factors are going to come into play in the next three years. As Sam Levenson would say, I got nothing else to worry about?

In 08, I don't know, as I don't know my choices. But here is rough order of my preferences if I had to pick at the moment:

Kucinich
Conyers :-)!
Gore
Feingold
Edwards

Not a big fan of Clinton, Clark or Kerry, so my primary vote would likely go elsewhere. Don't really like Warner or Richardson either.

I will vote for the peace candidate(s) in 2008.

threads I have read recently.

I voted for Kerry, but I am amazed at how many people voted for other candidates.

I preferred Dean but thought Kerry would have a better chance of winning.

I think I may know why there is some anti-Kerry sentiment on DU. My theory is that people like me who voted for Kerry are the most angry with him. And many of the people on DU who are avid supporters of Kerry may not have even voted for him.

Anyway, this is a fascinating analysis to compare DUers with the democratic party voters and warrants MY VOTE FOR RECOMMENDED!

Had we had a primary that actually mattered, I would have probably voted for Dean. Oddly enough, I developed alot more respect for him after the New Hampshire Primary. Sometimes you can see the class in a politician in the way they lose more than in the way they win. I had also become convinced that we needed a candidate who had not supported the war.

Dean was the most qualified of the antiwar candidates.