The MOST Democratic candidate will beat Bush MOST decisively

Kucinich not only has the best core, liberal Democratic positions on issues I care about: ending the death penalty, universal single-payer health care, making the Pentagon accountable to the taxpayers, demilitarizing space - he also has the best chance to beat Bush by greater than the Black Box margin of theft.

Kucinich will bring with him most if not all of the Greens who voted Nader in 2000 (and the Greens likely won't run a candidate if Kucinich is the nominee). That means 3 million extra votes for Kucinich, and if nothing else changed, that would mean a 4 million vote lead over Bush in November 2004.

But the 40/40/20 rule gives us an idea of how many voters will stick with Kucinich. Forty million of Gore's votes in 2000 were "core" Democrats, according to this rule - they're not going anywhere.

Of the 10 million who voted Gore but who considered themselves "independent" voters, applying a bell curve, we see that half, or 5 million of them, voted for Gore but wished he were more liberal, or put off voting for Nader to avoid hurting Gore. So those 5 million will belong to Kucinich as well.

That puts Kucinich up against Bush with 48 million pretty sure votes, and Bush only got 50 million TOTAL in 2000 - he won't get that many again.

But it gets better - there are still 5 million votes left over THAT ALL WENT TO GORE IN 2000.

That means that to cover a 2 million vote gap, Kucinich has 5 MILLION PREVIOUS DEMOCRATIC VOTERS to do it.

Compare the other frontrunners - Dean and Clark are banking on remaking the Democrats over into blustering, militaristic "fighters" in order to appeal to the former Bush voters they will need in order to beat Bush in 2004.

Kucinich nearly matches the Bush take in 2000 at the starting gate. He could lose 1.5 million previous Gore voters and still beat Bush.

Every other candidate needs ALL Gore's votes, PLUS previous Bush voters to win.

And a tie is a loss.

Republicans have gotten better at stealing elections - 8 million or more votes will be tabulated by Black Boxes with no paper trail in 2004. And electoral votes have shifted to Bush states.

Nominating Dean or Clark is asking for a repeat of 2000 - a tie, caused by forcing the candidates to compete for the SAME VOTERS - previous Bush voters and the 5% of the electorate that voted for Gore but wished he were more conservative.

I think this is a losing proposition.

I think the most Democratic candidate will beat Bush most soundly.

I think Dennis Kucinich is our best bet for taking back the White House, and actually having a plan for what to do with it once we get it back.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

Dreaming is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, it doesn't correlate with reality too often.

I, personally, find trite put-downs unappealing and unconvincing.

Perhaps the millions of Bush voters your candidate will need to win the White House think differently.

Thanks for playing.

Thats your opinion, as silly as it may be.
So I offered my opinion, and as silly as it may be (in your opinion), I have just as much right to express it as you do. It wasn't a "trite put-down"--it was a dose of reality.

You offered an opinion.

The 40/40/20 rule isn't my "opinion." It's how all election consultants, Republicans and Democrats alike, decide how to allocate resources trying to convince the key demographic to switch to the side they favor.

As applied, it states that the core will support the Democrat. That means that any Democratic nominee will get the 40% core.

The numbers that are "up for grabs" are the 20% of the "independents."

This factor is complicated by the Green vote - mostly made up of disenfranchised Democrats.

It's not only not silly to analyze the numbers and show that a Democrat with the Green vote would be more powerful against Bush, it's supported by the facts and the 40/40/20 rule.

You were right, however, that your opinion in response was "silly" because it wasn't backed by anything, it just purported to be "reality" but it was all just made up in your head.

Centrists are good at convincing each other, but they aren't much good at convincing anyone else - that, maybe more than any other thing, is why the 2004 Presidential election, with Dean or Clark as the nominee, is likely to end in a "tie" that the Republicans (who've gotten better at vote-stealing since 2000), will steal.

no. of Democrats on the hill over the past 20-30 years? Perhpas it's more evidence that running after the right is costing us votes and elections.

Their insistence on copying the Republicans and hewing to a more conservative line in order to convince Republicans to switch has turned off voters.

I can see why the corporate media doesn't want him on tv.

Because he won't be clawing and fighting to try and convince former Bush voters - he can win with the 2000 Democratic vote and the Green vote combined.

Window Pane Flashback to the 60's......


I enjoyed it however, keep up the good work.

The facts under the 40/40/20 rule speak for themselves.

I can appreciate the thrill these centrist candidates are giving Democratic core activists but I don't think the thrill will translate to as decisive a win as running a tried and true Democrat espousing core liberal Democratic core principles will.

A Clark or a Dean win will rely on getting substantial numbers of voters who voted for Bush in 2000 to switch.

Not saying that it can't or won't be done, just saying it'd be easier with more votes in your pocket going into the fight, and being able to rely only on former Democratic voters to win, making all the Bush voters you get gravy.

I'm comfortable propounding this theory because other than trite put-downs, no Dean or Clark supporter has been able to refute it.

Just to recap, being popular with Democratic core activists doesn't mean winning former Bush voters over.

i raise my glass to you!

(ok, so it's a can...)

Kucinich doesn't represent the entire party. Though many on the left agree with him, there is a centrist wing of the party that would likely not find him an acceptable nominee.

Here's what that scenario would cause, I think. Someone will mount a third party charge in the center. Were Kucinich to win, then we'd have an election of an absolute rightist and an absolute leftist. It would be the perfect opportunity for someone to run down the middle, a la Perot in '92. However, the differences in this case, between the 2 major party candidates could mean that the third party candidate might actually win.

There are people unhappy with both parties in the middle, who don't like Bush, would be scared of Kucinich, and would vote for say, a John McCain, running as an alternative.

Not saying who that helps or hurts, but there is no chance that Kucinich would get all of Gore's votes, and all of Nader's votes and win. He might get all of Nader's votes, but he'd lose a significant number of Gore votes to a third party.

"He might get all of Nader's votes, but he'd lose a significant number of Gore votes to a third party."

i think enough people would see that as a vote for the shrub...

sometimes i think voters like the idea of a third party more than the candidate him/herself...

I agree that there might be people that see it like that, but there are going to be people just as scared of a Kucinich win as a Bush win.

But this scenario would be the best, perhaps ever, for a strong third party run in the center. And if someone like McCain did it, and started polling well, the public would perceive that he actually had a chance to win. And he just might. I think we'd have a result with 3 candidates each around 33%. I really don't know who would win.

"I agree that there might be people that see it like that, but there are going to be people just as scared of a Kucinich win as a Bush win."

Most of them are in corporate board rooms, sucking our economy and resources down the drain. Others are esconced in party leadership, sucking up for the dollars that come from those cash-heavy CEOs and lobbyists. The rest are busy misplacing our hard-earned dollars at the Pentagon.

Other than that, what's so damned scary about health care that is already funded, peace (a no-brainer) and a move toward bringing the interests of the government back where they should be, on the well-being of ALL the American people. I dunno, doesn't seem too terrifying to me... many of the alternatives, on the other hand... **shudder**

But we can't force the American electorate to see things as we do. And I disagree that those are the people that are scared of Kucinich. It's the under-educated middle class that tends to vote Republican, but not really be overly partisan. Bush would come at Kucinich with all kinds of "socailist" and "high tax" mantras, and it would likely work all too well.

i know many "under-educated/under-informed" middle class folks who vote republican based soley on the "lower taxes" issue

then they complain about the religious right...

*sigh*

The 40/40/20 rule has at its core that the core votes Democratic.

Some argue today that the core is smaller than 40% but almost no one argues the rule doesn't apply.

That means that the people who "wouldn't" support Kucinich would come from the 5% of the electorate that voted for Gore but wished he were more conservative. The way the numbers work, even if Kucinich got no former Bush voters, he could lose 1.5 million former GORE voters and still beat Bush.

That means that for all the handwringing, under the application of the rule, the most Kucinich would lose would be the 5 million who voted for Bush but wished he were more conservative.

Now two things argue against that affecting Kucinich:

1. He has great draw with Republicans already - he pulls in an estimated 50% of the REPUBLICAN vote in his district. Integrity is a draw (ask any Republican who voted for Wellstone). Kucinich isn't as easily pegged as people like to think, he just follows his principles with integrity - that's a draw across the board.

2. There will be great pressure among the people who crossed over to vote for Bush from the Libertarians or conservative Democrats to vote against Bush this time already - that means that Kucinich will benefit from getting the votes of those disgruntled with Bush - even moreso because he offers one of the clearest alternatives to Bush of ANY of the candidates.

So I don't subscribe to your theory that the loss in votes for Kucinich wouldn't be MORE than offset by the gain from holding firm to core, liberal Democratic values and offering the clearest alternative to Bush.

Election consultants use the 40/40/20 rule to determine what demographic groups to focus on to sway minute numbers of voters to win elections.

It tells us that there will be barely 10 million independents who will determine the outcome of the 2004 election - 5 million who voted for Bush last time but wished he were more "compassionate" and 5 million who voted for Gore last time but wished he were more "conservative."

Kucinich could start at - 48 million
Bush could start at - 45 million

With -

5 million previous Gore voters, and
5 million previous Bush voters

...up for grabs.

In that situation, Kucinich could lose1.5 million previous Gore voters and still win.

If Kucinich were truly speaking to "traditional Democrats" about "traditional Democratic beliefs", he would be doing better in the polls, and he's not. The guys barely a blimp on the radar screen. So that tells me he's not really addressing "core" Democrats.

And no, the media has nothing to do with it.

The "Kucinich isn't doing well" is a media creation.

He's second highest in hits on his website, an indicator which foreshadowed his second place in the MoveOn.org primary within one point.

He's second place among Central California Democrats - they were stopped from endorsing Dean, who came in first at their meeting, by Kucinich's strong second place showing.

Variously among Iowa polls conducted by media outlets, Kucinich ranks from second to fourth - that puts him in the top or middle tier, not at the bottom, as ABC would have us believe.

No, Kucinich is not only doing better than Bill Clinton was doing at a similar point in the 1992 campaign, he's doing well by real measures OTHER THAN the same-old-same-old Gallup and Zogby polls.

I'm confident that Kucinich will remain a top or middle tier candidate all the way through to the convention.

And when you see how few votes he gets compared to the others in the primaries and how few deligates he sends to the convention, you'll have a better understanding of what I mean. Or not. You may deny what is plainly in front of your face for all I can tell.

As far as his campaign, I think he'll stick it out just to get his meaasge out and to bring the issues he thinks are important to the forefront. But, I have no reason to believe he thinks he can actually win the nomination.

Because he's the only candidate who could make the election a referendum among only people who voted for Gore last time.

The 40/40/20 rule says 40 million will vote Democratic regardless (using the 2000 numbers).

Kucinich is the only one to get the Green vote, and also get the votes of every independent who voted Gore but wished he were more "populist" - potentially giving Kucinich a 3 million vote edge on Bush before a single "independent" vote is tabulated.

Every other candidate, Clark and Dean included, are counting on being able to club the Greens into line while trying to appeal to former Bush voters from 2000.

I think that's a recipe for a tie and I think a tie is a loss, because Republicans have gotten better at stealing votes (8 million votes in 2004 will be tabulated on Black Boxes with no paper trail), and because electoral votes have moved to Bush states from the 2000 census.

I think Kucinich represents the best strategy to beat Bush by greater than the Black Box theft spread.

I'm not a believer in the BBV conspiracy theories so I won't even address that.

What Kucinich might pick up in the Green voters I think he would lose that and more in the moderate to conservative Democrats. I know several fellow Dems who would vote Bush before they would vote Kucinich because they see him as being too liberal for them.

Kucinich picks up 3 million Greens.

At risk are 5 million Gore voters from 2000 who thought Gore was too "liberal."

So there's the equation.

Kucinich could afford to lose 1.5 million Gore voters and still win against Bush.

Whether or not you believe in the BBV theory, you have to admit that a "tie" last time resulted in a loss.

Therefore, you're possibly amenable to the idea that building the greatest margin of victory is going to be important.

I think that Kucinich has the best chance of building the best margin of victory.

He can use the base of Green voters to withstand a potential loss of some previous Gore voters and still win.

No other candidate can start the race from that position of strength. Even now we're hearing calls for the Greens to "get in line" without offering them any incentive other than fear or loathing of Bush. Kucinich offers a carrot, not a stick, to get those voters.

And as to "liberal" Kucinich takes an estimated 50% of the Republican vote in his district.

In 2000, while Gore carried Kucinich's district at about 60%, Kucinich scored higher - 75% of the vote.

If there is an obvious draw to Kucinich for voters even greater than the draw was for Gore in the same area, I find no reason to believe that he would lose a substantial number of Gore voters across the nation.

Therefore, I would put the people you've said would "vote Bush" in the camp of the less than 1.5 million previous Gore voters that Kucinich could lose and still win against Bush.

I see Kucinich as the strongest candidate going up against Bush.

... and I'll say it again now.

I almost hope Kucinich is the nominee. There are those who claim the party needs to shift much further to the left. I disagree. But at least if we ran Kucinich we could find out how a true liberal candidate would fare in a general election.

If he ran and won, fine. If he ran and lost, then we could show the Kucinich voters to the door, boot them out on their ear, and get on with repairing the party. Kind of a drastic way to find out, but I'm beginning to become more and more convinced that's what's going to need to take place.

So go ahead and plot "splitting the Party" at our entire, mutual peril.

You DK people got that "splitting the Party at our entire, mutual peril" wrapped up on your own.

So that's unifying the party, not dividing it.

That will be true only to the extent that centrists don't bolt. Despite the legendary intransigence of the left, it was so-called moderates who formed "Democrats for Nixon" and "Reagan Democrats."

Hmmm, maybe the mythology isn't 100% true, ya think?

I think that history gives us a guide as to what the Democrats will do, and it shows that the substantial number will vote Democratic.

You can debate how big the Democratic "core" is, and you can play tricky semantics games with "centrists" but they're not - in the center, that is.

The people that conservatives are calling "centrists" are just that - conservative independents who might have voted for Gore last time.

The rule shows how many there are - about 5 million, on the Gore side.

Despite their vocal nature, that's how many there are.

Now, first, with the Green vote and whatever number of the nonvoter thrilled to be able to vote for a real fire-breathing populist for once who will be guaranteed Kucinich voters before even going up against Bush - Kucinich will have at least 48 million votes to start with - and this excludes all the "centrists" who voted for Gore in 2000 that you're talking about.

Bush will have, for argument's sake, 50 million - every vote he got in 2000 (he won't, but that's another matter).

So Kucinich will have to appeal only to the 5 million previous Gore voters who consider themselves "centrists" and if he does, he beats Bush by more than 3 million votes.

Now, secondly, Kucinich already has appeal in the "centrist" community.

Election records show that he takes 50% of the "Reagan Republican" vote in his district, that includes Parma, a conservative suburb full of "Reagan Republicans."

I don't think it's "mythology" and I think the supporters of the candidacies of Dean and Clark are underplaying the very distinct possibility that they are going to run races that result in a "tie" with Bush in 2004 - and a tie is a loss.

I think that Kucinich offers the only real candidacy that has a chance of cementing the voters of Nader and Gore together to deliver the White House to the Democrats by greater than the margin of Black Box voting theft or whatever other shenanigans the Republicans have up their sleeves this time around.

My post was sympathetic. It appears that the ending remark was just too cryptic.

The mythology to which I intended to refer was about the intransigence of the left. I cannot count the number of times I've read the scold that "you can't get 100% of what you want," when no one ever made that claim.

If the lefties (liberal Dems, Greens, socialists) aren't as intransigent as some claim, then they should substantially support Kucinich. Would that all opponents of this illegitimate regime were equally flexible.

It seems to me to have been a long time coming - the gradual emergence of a third party of the "left" and not completely unrelated to Democrats and Republicans having had to put out the fire that they perceived was Perot's third party of the "center."

If the Greens I talk to are any indication, the disappointed "lefties" are of the opinion that the Democratic Party has purposefully turned its back on them - therefore, as to intransigence, if the Democratic Party put forth a candidate that changed that circumstance by taking positions or reconciling stands with the concerns of these voters, they'd support the Democratic nominee.

It seems to me these people are motivated more by idealism and the goal of having a Party that aspires to more, rather than settling for less.

I think that's part of the reason they are very reluctant to back a candidate who offers "less" when there is a candidate who offers "more."

We shoot above the target to hit the target. Therefore, when we're told ahead of time that this is "all we can hope for" or "the only thing that will pass Congress" we dismiss the archer as not understanding how the arrow is shot.

Would that all opposers of the illegitimate regime were as clear on the path to get what we need to heal the ills brought on by the BFEE.

No offense to DK...I think he means well...but when will he go away? He has no shot I think most would agree. It's just sort of irritating.

-Ted Koppel

lets let the democratic primary voters decide. Look at it this way. Nader got 3.7 million votes--DK seems to have made inroads with Green supporeters. What if a good share of them voted in democratic primaries for DK? this might not be showing up in the polls. Add to that the left wing democratic party vote and DK could get more votes in primaries and Caucuses than many candidates who the national press shower attention on.

If anyone lost that debate, it was Ted Koppel.

this is the gold standard of political analysis in optimistic projections we will see for all the candidates at one time or another. Rather than attack the example the general ideas should be seriously pondered.

The electoral picture is less predictable than ever. The grass roots power and party unity has not coalesced yet. Yes, BBV has not been rolled back sufficiently to redeem states that should otherwise go into our column. The charisma or comforting graviotas of our candidate has not been presented to the people. Usually one knows right at the Convention whether there will be a walkover or blowout(one way or the other) but all boosts are transitory, crucial support unfunded and wary. The monoplozed media forums of presenting our case is poisoned to say the least. Just watch the debate "moderators" in action. In my opinion moderators should never be pundits or personalities of any stripe or should vanish altogether. Who is paying for the mikes anyway?

Expecting constituencies to be there is not the winning strategy(that goes especially for Lieberman). Bean counting is not vote getting, nor voter inspiration. These scenarios are tnot terribly useful but do highlight how rational guessing flounders against political realities every time.

Better to make the case for not ignoring this view of voter interests
in Kucinich's most authentic championing of the moral high ground.

patrick you speak the truth

... that when the conversation actually gets to policy and real accounting of probable voter turnout and trends that supports Kucinich, the only argument that tends to be used is one-liner derision? I guess some folks can't handle the truth.

Kucinich is the only candidate that will enjoy wide-spread support from the Greens (his platform is remarkably Green-friendly), as well as a number of disenfranchised voters. Hell, one of our most active and dedicated campaigners in these parts is not even a Dem (he leans anarchist but is firmly Kucinich only, a position I suspect is rampant among non-party activists). Those who are against the corporate ownership of our democratic process should not be expected to support the standard Dem agenda and will most likely not compromise by voting for a corporately minded centrist. DK is our best hope of keeping the large numbers of progressives in the fold rather than losing them to Nader or apathy.

Does anyone else realize that Nader is most likely holding off on announcing candidacy until he sees what will happen with Kucinich? I predict no run with a DK nominee, otherwise it will be full steam ahead and a pitched battle for the left vote. The other candidates cannot count on fullscale progressive support, particularly because virtually none of their policies (despite exhortations otherwise) are actually progressive. For progress, things need to change and there is precious little of that outside of Kucinich.us.

I am one of those fifty million voters that voted for Gore and would do so again in a heartbeat. I will vote for a yellow dog before I would Bush*.

I myself am not old enough to vote, yet I know that I would be very reluctant to cast a vote for Kucinich. If Kucinich is nominated, then the chances are, as someone has said, that a centrist like McCain would mount a third-party campaign. If that happened, I imagine my parents (Democrats to the core) would vote for this third-party candidate, and that would be who I supported as well.

I know it looks like there's lots of Kucinich support here, but this board is full of active Democrats and leans towards the liberal wing of the party. In reality, Kucinich has little support among the Democratic party and would have no chance of winning the national election.

"In reality, Kucinich has little support among the Democratic party and would have no chance of winning the national election."

that leaves us without a leftist candidate in the general election time and time again...

think positive

we have been told time and time again that a far left candidate is unelectable...it's been awhile since one had the chance...

"too liberal"???

there is no such thing in my book!

one love
spike

Can you provide some evidence? What are your assertions based on?

1. Centrists are not going to run a 3rd-party campaign. There is no 3rd party centrist enough to make that viable. 3rd parties are inherently not "centrist."

2. "Democrats to the core" will vote for whoever the democrats nominate. If they are democrats to the core, they know that defeating George W. Bush is paramount. If you didn't know it yet, Dennis Kucinich is a "democrat to the core." He will not be making a 3rd party run if he does not get the nomination.

3. Active democrats are good democrats, and better informed than those waiting for network soundbites. We don't lean towards the "liberal wing of the party" so much as we have refused to join the national shift to the right wing. Of either party.

4. Congressman Kucinich has strong, vibrant support among a large number of democrats who are familiar with him, his record, and his platform. And as the primaries approach, more and more democrats will get to know him.

Welcome to politics, and to DU, leyton! When you are old enough to vote, I hope you'll help send democrats to congress to support whichever one of our candidates beats George Bush next november.

what the people of this country will do next November. I would love to believe this scenario because DK is the only Democrat (candidate) who really represents true, Democratic principles.

That being said, the realities of politics in Bush's Amerika are not promising.

For the repukes, does anyone actually think that any of their voters will abandon the party, especially now that they see themselves taking total control (GT 60 seats) in the Senate? They are lusting over the thought of an impotent (even more than they are now) Democratic party. They are not going to give up power.

For our side, the infighting evidenced here and between the candidates is only giving aid and comfort to the enemy. No matter who our nominee is, some Dem voters will leave - for Greens, for another third party, or for the beach.

As much as I would like to see a Kucinich presidency, or any Dem, for that matter, it is getting harder and harder to be optimistic. I just think that there are too many things working against us. History, PLEASE prove me wrong.

DPB - I like the phrase "Black Box margin of theft." I think it is something we should use at every opportunity.

we lose, usually by a landslide. Every time. That's not a "trite put-down," it's a fact. As for your numbers, they're mostly made-up.

It's how election consultants like James Carville decide where to allocate resources to move key demographics.

Your logic is severely flawed.

First, running a "Democrat" who believes in ending the death penalty, universal single-payer health care, making the Pentagon accountable to the taxpayers, and abrogating the failed NAFTA agreement, is not "running left" it's offering a real alternative to the failed Bush administration.

Second, the way to win the 2004 Presidential election is to offer the clearest alternative to Bush while widely and strongly deriding everything the Republicans have done since Reagan.

Third, even a basic look at the numbers from 2000 show that more Americans who voted, picked a more "progressive" candidate than a "conservative" one.

Fourth, Bush got only less than 18% of the eligible vote in 2000. He doesn't represent ANYONE, and offering a candidate who will inspire people who normally don't vote will make a big difference. Eighty million eligible voters didn't vote in 2000.

Fifth, the application of the 40/40/20 rule to the 2000 election numbers makes it clear that the Democrats will be in a stronger position by offering up the only candidate with a real appeal to the disenfranchised Democratic voter who voted Green last time - because the candidate will retain the core and have fewer voters to have to convince - and would then be able to win by securing ONLY the votes of people who voted Democratic last time.

This "common wisdom" that a Democratic candidate espousing real core liberal Democratic positions would lose does not hold water in this election, since Bush is such a fuck-up.

This is the time to seize hold of the national dialog and reclaim the Democratic heritage the centrists have so cavalierly discarded since Reagan surprised them.

I am currently enjoying a mental image of you standing outside a polling place waving the 40/40/20 "rule" in people's faces and explaining why it proves they "have" to vote for Kucinich. People are going to vote for who they're going to vote for, regardless of any "rule" you have to the contrary. If you want to know who they're going to vote for, ask them. The people who have asked have found out that it's mostly not Kucinich.

First, of course it's running left. "Real alternative," running left, potato, potahto, same thing.

Second, that trick never works. Calling McGovern and Mondale as witnesses A and B, Goldwater as witness C.

Third, that's because the more progressive candidate was a progressive centrist. It wouldn't work for a lefty.

Fourth, people who don't vote don't vote. What's the point of bringing them into the conversation?

Fifth, the "core" is a minority of the people who voted for Gore. More Gore voters were either swing voters or voters who are basically Democrats but could be scared away by a fringe candidate. Even in as lefty a place as DU, Kucinich comes in third. Lots of Democrats wouldn't vote for him in the general election, in addition to most centrist independents.

Just because we think Bush is a fuck-up, that doesn't mean he's toast. He has nearly fifty percent of the country behind him no matter who we run. We can't afford the luxury of an ideological candidate.

All of your points are fiction. You need to look at the facts.

Those are the numbers.

Your frantic postulating aside, more people voted for a more progressive choice than a conservative choice in 2000.

I didn't invent the 40/40/20 rule, it's what election consultants use.

The "core" is only a minority of the total, it's not a minority of the Democrats. Forty percent of the total electorate is going to vote Democratic in the next election.

Only 20% of the electorate is "independent." Split between Republican and Democratic, that's 10% apiece.

Also, Kucinich is not a "lefty" with no draw.

While Gore took 60% of the vote in Kucinich's district in 2000, Kucinich took 75%. Clearly, he's more attractive across the board than even Gore was.

I don't think your theory holds water.

I don't think you have any proof that the Democratic core is anything less than 40% of the total electorate.

And Kucinich has already proven in an election that he's more attractive than Gore was.

No, I am still convinced that Kucinich represents the strongest candidate we could put up against Bush, because he is the only candidate to be able to say across the board that everything Bush did is a failure and this is what we're going to do to fix the mess Bush made.

People will vote for who they want to vote for, not who you say they "have" to vote for. Why can't you get that?

Of course Kucinich did better than Gore in Kucinich's own district. Did Gore even campaign in Kucinich's district? Kucinich's own little liberal district is hardly "across the board."

Once again, there is no factual basis for any of the assertions you have made. What good do you think it does to make up these fairy tales?

There are plenty of districts who voted Gore for President but voted their own Repug Congressman for the House. So saying Kucinich beat Gore in his own district is moot, just like his hope at gaining the nomination. He's not connecting with core voters or his poll numbers would be higher. And come the primaries, these DK supporters *may* (no promises) begin to see that.

That's as firm a commitment from the Greens as anyone is going to get.

No other candidate will get as many Green votes as Dennis, and he won't lose the core.

And people will vote who only vote for dynamic, populist candidates so a significant percentage of the 80 million who didn't vote in 2000 will come out to vote for Kucinich, too.

Your theory again has no backing - you're just saying things with no basis, engaging in what is increasingly sounding like hysterical demagoguery instead of measured argument.

The 40/40/20 rule is a real rule. Applying the rule shows Kucinich as the strongest candidate against Bush.

You don't have to believe it, but you're just embarassing yourself by crowing "you're wrong, you're wrong" without ever being able to show one fact or theory that backs up your claims.

The point was never that anyone "had" to vote for anyone, but that 40% of the electorate votes for one or the other of the major parties, and the rest of the vote is independent.

Kucinich will get all or most of the Green vote - most Greens have already said so or endorsed him. There is little question there.

No other candidate will start from that position of strength - potentially 48 million Kucinich votes versus 45 million Bush votes before leaving the starting gate, with 5 million previous Gore votes and 5 million previous Bush votes up for grabs.

Every other candidate will be trying to win voters who voted for Bush in 2000 to avoid a tie, which as we know is a loss.

A tie is a loss.

Having more voters in your pocket before going up agaisnt Bush is a better guard against ending up in a tie.

It's as simple as that.

Sake of argument, let's accept your 40/40/20 "rule." I'd still love to see you out in the districts trying to enforce it, but let's accept it for the sake of argument.

Less than 3% voted Green. By your "rule" 20% are swing/center/independent. Since Kucinich comes from the extreme wing of the party, and extremists alienate the center, we can assume that at least three-quarters of the middle, or 15%, would vote for Bush. There it is, 55-45 in favor of Bush.

And it's no good trying to say that Bush is an extremist too. The country doesn't agree with us on that. Again, look at the polls.

But anyway, anyone who is familiar with U.S. electoral history will tell you that running left to get the Green 3% will cost us 10% or more from the middle. It's a self-defeating strategy.

Isn't "electability" a form of speculation? "Who will the most people vote for?"

I invite anyone who's voting in the primaries is determined by "electability" show me the speculating formula that will point to who the winner is.

And another thing: Bush is far to the right. He only doesn't look that way because of the media spins things for him. They'll spin any Dem candidate to look too left. Each candidate will have basically the same problem.

is both our strongest candidate against Bush and the candidate who represents the most Democrats?

I can live with that. It sure won't be Kucinich.

Too many Democrats voting against who represents them best due to the exact same kind of fearmongering claptrap we see in posts like yours.

So no, the nominee will not necessarily be the one who represents the most Democrats. I we could count on that being the case, but due to efforts like this, carried out by not only independent citizens on forums such as this, but also by nearly every single mainstream media outlet, we can't.

Democracy successfully subverted.

I'm sure those controlling corporate media thank you for your assistance!

Aren't you admitting that Kucinich doesn't have a chance in the general election? Or is your assumption that the "controlling corporate media" are just going to go away after the primaries are over?

Or, without the conspiracy theory, if he's too far left for Democrats, how could he not be too far left for the electorate as a whole?

You haven't offered anything to back up your fearmongering claims about how the core won't vote for Kucinich other than "because I say so."

The facts are that this is how the Democratic core has voted in the past, and it's a viable enough theory to rely on for future predictions.

You don't have an alternative theory.

You're just trying to be as irritating as you can be to try and upset people. While you may be trying to be careful enough to avoid having your posts deleted by the moderators, you're not contributing anything to the discussion other that to make yourself look clueless.

Democrat who speaks up for Democratic values, not rightwing-light values. I think that Howard Dean is the perfect combination--he is Democratic in the areas that counts but he is very practical when it comes to fiscal / foreign policy issues.