Its nonsense Kucinich isn't electable.

Why are some people saying Dennis Kucinich isn’t electable? I’ve heard reasons like he looks wimpy and is to short, or he’s a socialist. The corporate owned media tries to stifle him, giving him little time to speak his views, having Russert ask non pertinent idiotic questions. Anyway, I'm going to address some nonsensical reasons why some people vote the way they do, and ignore a canidate thats been right every time.

First, I thought this was America the land of opportunity, isn’t saying someone looks funny and is to short for an administrative job a form of discrimination? What does height and looks have to do with important decision making abilities? The answer of course is nothing, that is if one has a degree of intelligence and can think for themselves. Perhaps, one who wouldn't vote for someone solely based on looks, should consider applying for a position on Jay Leno’s All Stars. Unforunately this type of thinking about people is prevalent in our country and needs confrontation with logic and intelligence.

Second, Kucinich is not a socialist. Socialism is looked at as a poison by some in this country. The facts are, many forms of socialism already exist in our country. A couple examples would be the police or fire departments. They are owned, funded collectively, and run by communities. What is social security, the program that has helped millions through the years but socialized retirement. President Franklin Roosevelt instigated the Social Security System was he a socialist? The answer is of course is he wasn’t. However, Roosevelt and others realized there is a place for socialistic principles to have a positive effect in certain areas of society. This type of thinking about socialism always being horrible exists in our country and needs to be confronted by logic and intelligence.

The other day, I saw a picture of a young lady with a coy smile on her face. She was with a tall handsome presidential canidate with his arm around her. I could see she was charmed, and I thought she probably will vote for him. In the past, I recall people excitedly telling me they had met a political canidate and had shook their hand. Later they told me they voted for that canidate. Is shaking hands or being allured a reason to vote for a canidate? Of course not, that is if your intelligence isn’t compromised by pretentious charm. Well guess what folks, this type of irrational, and emotional voter reasoning is also prevalent in our country. People are influenced by all sorts of irrational commercials, and various media adds. Whatever happened to critical and rational thinking? Are we just a country of people highly suggestable to glittery influences? I don’t think we are when using logic and rational thought in considering candidates for political office.

The above types of thinking processes are not only irrational but self defeating. The only way to alleviate faulty thinking is through confrontative logic and intelligence. There are other types of problems across the political spectrum needed to be dealt with also, like corporate influenced media favoritism towards candidates or issues. Anyone with a lick of logic can see that going on. Our country needs intelligent, rational and honest leaders to confront and fix these problems.

Dennis Kucinich is electable, in fact he's been elected several times to congress.I believe he is worth listening to with an open mind. His views on all of the issues are logical and in the best interest of the people in this country. Mr. Kucinich is genuine, honest, logical, wise, and not influenced by corporate or special interests. I believe he is the type of canidate with the qualities necessary to confront and fix serious problems in our country. An intelligent and rational voter, will not let biased media influence them, listen to what a canidate says, look at his record and make an informed decision.

Jimmy811

No candidate is "unelectable" right now, as no votes have been cast. Dennis Kucinich is the President America NEEDS to recover from 8 years of destruction. Let's get back all the voters driven away by the short sighted selfishness of the DLC. Let's nominate the right candidate for the right time. Dennis Kucinich.

Theres no way to force voters to become informed. And it seems to me that a large number of them dont bother to do any research. I even find myself screaming at c-span callers when they talk about candidates not giving them details. Me: "Its all there on the website... stop being so damned lazy and go look at it".

adding: If there were some way to require voter education I'd be all for it.

not at this time. With his message, no one is. And I'm a supporter.

A little more specific, please. Exactly what "message" makes him unelectable?

It is where Kucinich stands on the issues that gets him any support at all. It sure ain't his good looks.

by and large, an honest politician.

Let's see...a couple of examples...he was right about Iraq. Counts for nothing. He was right about Patriot Act. It counts for nothing. It counts for nothing. It counts for nothing because a majority of Americans still believe, however badly things are going there, that we had a noble moral reason for going to Iraq. They still believe in American exceptionalism. Americans are currently so fear driven that they are willing to submit to the Patriot Act, and others of it's ilk, and are willing to countenance an actual debate as to the allowabilty/ morality of torture. He's right on health care. He was right on Nafta, and China trade. He's right on the death penalty, and the war on drugs. Being right, over and over gets you shit. Consider the leading contenders for the nomination. Over and over, they have been wrong. They were wrong on IWR, they were wrong on the Patriot Act, they have been wrong on nafta, they have been wrong on foreign policy misadventures and crimes against humanity like Plan Colombia.

What makes him unelectable is that he's not an American exceptionalist. He's not an imperialist. He's not a corporatist. Americans, by and large, have internalized the myth of the rugged individual, and disdain the idea that we have to look out for one another. Even his clearest copycat this cycle, John Edwards, has to frame his faux universal health care plan in Republican terms like "personal responsibility". He's not electable because most Americans, even when the message resonates with them, don't really want to/ aren't willing to commit to the change of worldview that enacting such messages entails.

Lets not only make him electable lets elect him. Lets get the best person as our president and thats Dennis Kucinich.

my opinion

In a fair debate he would cream any and all Repug candidates. Dennis IS electable.

And they don't ever want to give him an opportunity. Kucinich is very intelligent, quick with his mind, he would wipe the floor with any of them, because he's right and has been all along. What are the other canidates going to say? Dennis you were wrong on Iraq, Nafta, and the Patriot Act Your proposal for healthcare is ridiculous, everyone knows how well private insurance takes care of people.

:shrug:

and it's not that he's "funny" looking or short. And it's not even entirely the fault of the MSM. Dennis, as is widely known, runs a terrible campaign. I don't even think he's serious. He says things that turn off the American public. Hell, Bernie Sanders is more electable than Dennis, and he IS a socialist.

Kucinich/Sanders 2008. Works for me.

but give me Sanders/Kucinich any day of the week. Sanders gets things done, and at least he's electable state wide. Of course such a ticket would lose to anyone but Tom Tancredo.

Denis is totally unelectable for a host of reasons. His UFO encounter stands out as one. It is statements like this that ensure he is unelectable. The fact that he is elected to the house by one district in his home state in no way translates to national appeal. Add to that his hight looks and now even his trophy wife and you have a combination that just wont get him mainstream support ever. I agree with Denis on a lot of things but his cooky moments are frequent enough to ensure I would never seriously consider him as a candidate for potus.

Your own post lays out why he isn't electable quite clearly.

"this type of irrational, and emotional voter reasoning is also prevalent in our country. People are influenced by all sorts of irrational commercials, and various media adds"

Like it or not that is the reality we live in. Perhaps in another time Denis would rise to the top. Unfortunately we live in Present day America where paris hilton makes the news as much or more than real life affecting issues.

So no, in our current american climate Denis is not electable.

He even worked his belief into a speech about Russia and the nuclear arms race....

"With our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. I occasionally think how quickly our differences, worldwide, would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."

Jimmy Carter was a believer as well. He said this on his campaign in 1976....

"If I become President, I'll make every piece of information this country has about UFO sightings available to the public and scientists. I am convinced that UFOs exist because I have seen one."

They both were elected. Other respected leaders like Barry Goldwater and General Douglas McArthur have made statements indicating a belief in UFO's and/or extraterrestrial life.

And any honest person would have to reason that, with billions of planets out there, the odds of life existing only on this one, are less than the odds of Chimp actually winning Florida.

I personally think it would be a miracle if we were the only sentient beings in the universe. That has no bearing whatsoever though on the eligibility of denis. Its just one example of his quirkiness that ensures he will never be elected president.

I like the guy but I would never want him as my president. I am glad he runs though as I appreciate him bringing a lot of the issues he does to the table and forcing others to confront them.

But sorry theres just too many factors working against him for him to have a serious shot. He has improved his game immensely though since the last time around. Maybe next time around he will have polished it enough to finally be taken seriously.

So he fooled a lot of people into thinking he was.

That by itself means something. And its not that Dennis is electable.

Perhaps Russert could have asked Edwards how he liked his $400.00 haircut and how it reinforces his commitment to the poor. Or maybe ask Hilary what she will do if Bill is caught getting a another BJ in the white house. The point is Kucinich was singled out by the corporate supported media. His ideas are very progressive but not fitting with the status quo. If you want the same old stuff fine. If you want a change for the positive and a direction towards peace and cooperation with the rest of the world. Vote Kucinich.

1976 must therefore not have happened.

It is a complete bullshit issue that continues the framing of elections as sports contests or beauty pagents. Rather than discussing what candidates stand for, what their record is, the national media focus is invariably on this sort of crap.

Evaluate candidates by where they stand on the issues that are important to you and by what they have done in the past.

Denis would have a decent shot. Bush proves pretty soundly though that thats not even close to the case.

I actually agree with you even though I started this thread.

That's all there is too it. He's a small, funny looking man. In the time before TV he would have elctable but not today. America certainly is NOT the land of opportunity, it hasn't mbeen for many decades. It's the land of greedy, selfish, self righteous, basically ignorant, shallow people. It's the land of the sound bite and swift-boating. It's the land of 'I've got mine to hell with you'. It;s the land where looks are som important that people die trying to stay thin.

If you think that looks aren't a major factor in electabilty, you're extremely naive.

Dennis keeps getting re-elected to Congress. You complain that Americans are "greedy, selfish, self righteous, basically ignorant, shallow people" after dismissing DK as a "small, funny looking man". You might consider taking a long hard look in a mirror.

total fucktards get elected to congress(not that dennis is one) but your point means nothing.

Apparently you have bought that line hook, line and sinker.. have you ever asked yourself why this lie is being
repeated over and over ad nauseum? Could it be that Dennis is so spot-on with his message to the American people, and
so completely unassailable of any "dirt" or sketchy positions on issues that really matter that this tired
line is ALL that ANYone can come up with as a way to dismiss him out-of-hand?

And formed our own opinion on his unelectability as much as we may agree with him on many things?

Nah we must just be sheeple. But if we are, guess what theres a lot more sheeple out there voting, Bush proves this completely. So either way dennis is not electable.

if only enough people wake up enough to seize this moment in history, where it is poesible, just possible, that
we can salvage what's left of our democracy and constitutional rights.

Like Einstein said, we can't solve current problems within the self-same mindset that created them in the first place..
or something to that effect.

Dennis represents a whole new direction, and yes he's a "long shot" I'll admit, but he's really the ONLY shot we have.

Bush stealing two elections really does not "prove" anything, except how much we need a Dennis Kucinich in the WH asap.

"you're duped by the MSM" load of crap at me. Don't have TV, don't ever listen to ANY talk radio, don't read Newsweek or Time or any of that crap, and I don't think Dennis is electable at all.

I'm so puking sick of being told you're duped by the MSM when I actually am more MSM free than 99% of folks here and that probably includes YOU.

So now I'm still left wondering why you'd dismiss The Little Guy from Ohio as a serious candidate ... oh, that's right, you say:
"He's a small, funny looking man" ... you don't think Bush is "funny looking"?

or maybe it's cuz you say "In the time before TV he would have elctable but not today." .. but that leaves me wondering why
you give away so much power to the same MSM you refuse to watch.

very puzzling.

Is that all the reasons you have for not wanting to support the ONLY candidate who's unequivocally committed to upholding the US
Constitution?

So no cigar for you. I don't think he's electable because I don't think he's able to build coalitions. He hasn't in the House. I don't think he's electable because he can't even run a decent campaign. I'm sure you're aware that the stories about his campaign flaws are legion. I don't think he's electable because he's never demonstrated that he can be elected state wide. Why didn't he run for the Senate last year? I'll tell you why; because he damned well knew he couldn't get elected. Brown managed it. Kucinich wouldn't have. Hell, he may even lose his House seat this year. In short, Dennis is not an effective leader. He's got some great ideas, but that's not enough.

Oh, and I never said that in the time before TV he'd be electable. I doubt he would have been. You appear to have read not what I wrote, but what some other poster wrote.

my bad, so sorry.

have a nice day.
:hi:

Or are we going on the ground that he was not really elected?

as some of the other candidates. My lack of support has nothing to do with the way he looks or his "electability." Thousands and thousands of people know who he is but aren't supporting him. I doubt they are all withholding their support because they all think he is "unelectable".

OK you made a decision not to vote for him. Is it because he doesn't have to apologize for having voted against the war from the start? Is it because he wants Bush led Iraq war ended quickly by not funding it? Is it because he was practically the only one to read and vote against the Patriot Act? Is it because he co-authored HR 676 the only non profit health care proposal made by any of the canidates? Is it because he instigated a proposal to impeach Cheney for lying to the american people and starting an illegal war killing thousands? Is it because he is willing to stand alone if necessary to do what is right?

but my reasons aren't any that you listed.

Like "teflon", "likability" these are MSM made terms indicating the supine masses their orders from the propaganda "catapulters"

They've never steered me wrong. Unfortunately, I'm a canuck so I can't.

His recent statements regarding Ron Paul should take Dennis off the table for any sane American, until such a point he goes "you know what, that was a bad idea, here's a better one..." and nominates Mickey Mouse or some other running mate less cartoonish than Ron Paul

A SINO.

The last time he ran he got single digits in the primaries, there's nothing to say that will change this time around.

home of "Blackwater USA?" and....Kerry/Edwards DID NOT WIN NC Vote in '04...

What does that tell you? There's "potential there" is what I think now three years later. :shrug:

Outraised by every Dem except Gravel and outraised by every GOPer still in the race except Tancredo.

"The last time he ran he got single digits in the primaries, there's nothing to say that will change this time around."

Is that a rational reason not to vote for him?

people abhor the Republicans right now. Few will dare admit they're Republicans.

And wasting it on a DLC candidate :(

get $$$ and also a way to bypass the media lies.

"People are more in agreement with Kucinich but he'd have to find a way to get $$$ and also a way to bypass the media lies."

A lot of people are in agreement with him, some don't even know it. But what a shame it is that $$$ is so important and the media can't be fair.

(sheesh, and I promised myself I wouldn't bash him anymore...)

he's unelectable because, well, nobody's actually voting for him. So what if he gets re-elected in his district-- slmost all of them do. And don't forget the dry years when he had to cop a bunk with Shirley MacLain because nobody was voting for him and he couldn't get a job.

How'd he do last time out? His best showing was 31% in the Hawaii caucus, but barely got into double digits anywhere else. Most places he got low single digits, without delegate one. Hawaii caucus-- yeah, I'd take that one to the bank.

And don't give me that crap about ABC dumping coverage of his campaign-- they dumped it because he HAD NO campaign. Koppel may have been out of line for asking if his cmapign was a vanity one, but that' what a lot of us were thinking. He put himself in the same spot as Nader, Moseley-Braun and Sharpton--all losers who refused to quit.

Dennis has great postions. Yeah, he does, and I would love to see most of them happen, but "positions" are not what the Presidency is about.

After all the bullshit and bluster from all the candidates, how are they going to deal wiht US employment, dollar draining, educational and infracstructure shortfalls, crises in the Middle East, Africa, and South America, emerging China and India as global competitors, Castro's impending death, Putin's taking Russia back to Stalinism, and...

Well, you get the idea, and every one of these problems has to be dealt with while various factions here and abroad are fighting to the death to get their own "solutions" passed.

So, convince us that Rep. Moonbeam is more than his "positions" and some of might come on board this train. So far it's just a wreck.

The ufo question was BS. Russert could have asked a stupid question of any of the other canidates but singled out Kucinich. If you're a fan of the corporate world you probably appreciated Russert's question. Now I don't think how a canidate is doing ought not be a reason to vote or not vote for them. I vote for who I believe is the best based on record and other qualities. If you feel strongly because he isn't doing well is a reason to not consider him than you might as well stop reading any further. I believe you're not that way so I'll start with a response to a statement you made.

"Dennis has great postions. Yeah, he does, and I would love to see most of them happen, but "positions" are not what the Presidency is about."

I agree it takes more than just having positions. I think a good president should be honest, intelligent, compassionate, tough, determined, an ability to project a good future direction, and have a sense of whats right. But even more a president needs to have courage and a willingness to fight. Kucinich shows these qualities by his actions. Rather than follow the crowd on the war and Patriot Act, Kucinich stood practically alone against the huge majority. My friend, that takes intelligence, a sense of what is right, courage and a willingness to fight. His HR 676 congressional healthcare bill demonstrates sound judgement in doing whats best for the people. The other canidates want to continue with private insurance,perhaps because they got some $$$ from them. I don't know about you but I've been screwed enough by those sob's. Just the other day Obama was asked about his plan and stated if he started from scratch he would begin a single payer plan. So why isn't Obama doing it now? In my opinion its because he doesn't have enough of the qualities Kucinich has. By the way Al Gore (arguably the most respected democrat at this time) supports a non profit health system like the one Kucinich introduced. Kucinich has the balls to do what is right in attempting to impeach Cheny and defend the constitution. Where are all the other democrats voted to office in standing up to the Bush administration? Seems to me they're all talk and no walk. Dennis Kucinich is what America needs. A man of integrity.

ran two horrible Presidential campaigns and can't explain HOW he'll get his plans in place while under attack from just about everyone in DC is not an asshole.

Explain to me how I can trust this guy who had to cop a bunk from Shirley MacLaine is going to deal with Pakistan. Iran. China.

Right now, I don't want him as President, and it looks like the rest of the country agrees with me.

But, he's not going to be President, so I'll go back to ignoring him and all threads about him.

You don't care about the UFO and then bring Shirley Maclaine up. You want me to explain why you could trust Kucinich, then say you don't want him as president and the rest of the country agrees with you. Then you'll go back to ignoring threads about him.

Because I believe in Kucinich, I will make an effort again to explain why. Ok a little different angle. How many elected officials in Washington voted against the Iraq war? Whoever didn't would have shown some wisdom and ability to stand in the minority, and they were right. Actually it didn't take a whole lot of smarts to realize the Iraq war was hogwash. But thats beside the point except to illustrate the lack of logic and leadership the ones that agreed and gave Bush the authority had. How many elected officials in Washington voted against the Patriot Act. I'll give you a little clue, only the ones that read it. I would think elected officials would read a bill especially one from the Bush administration. Gee, I wonder if any of the presidential canidates agreed with and endorsed the Patriot Act. Well if there was any that voted against it they sure were advocating for their constituents. How many in congress voted to not fund the war? Those that did must really want to end the war. How many of the current canidates are excited to have private insurance help out us poor americans without any coverage. They really understand how private insurance has the best medical interests of people in mind. There was one canidate I heard wanted a non profit single payer system, he just don't understand how kind and generous private insurances are. I heard there was one canidate who was trying to impeach VP Cheney. Boy the nerve of that guy. Just because Cheney made a few little mistakes. According to this guy he's standing up for the constitution. Thankfully non of the other canidates are with him.

many of us can be convinced so easily by simply looking at his voting record and pronouncments.

Being just about the only one in Congress to present an impeachment bill doesn't mean squat. If he were actually able to shepherd that bill through the House and get it voted on, now THAT would be an accomplishment.

If he were able to get ANYONE to back his Department of Peace plan, that would be an accomplishment.

We're waiting...

Oh, and hanging with Shirley has nothing to do with UFOs, unless Shirley was communicating psychically with him. More to the point is that he spent a lot of time as an unemployed dreamer.

Presidential material?

His statements about Ron Paul show an upsetting lack of judgment.

Did he comment about Ron Paul? If so, what did he say (any links)?

Thanks for the link. :(

we nominate an 'electable' team that loses the general?

.

It's what they've been doing since 2000.

All Kucinich has to do to get elected, is win elections.

Since I'm guessing he can't, I'm not looking that direction right now: so prove me wrong

"All Kucinich has to do to get elected, is win elections.

Since I'm guessing he can't, I'm not looking that direction right now: so prove me wrong"








So based on your statement I take it you don't consider a canidates positions or their integrity, honesty etc... and only vote for the frontrunner.

:boring:

Maybe he could start showing his electability by opening an office in Iowa.

I think all of our candidates are electable up against the douche bags on the Republican side.

A whole truckload full of responses "explaining" that you are "mistaken;" that
of course he's not electable.

All bullshit. I question whether he can win the nomination in his own party. It's his own party that is determined to pass him by. I'll bet you can find examples of that determination right here on this thread.

From my perspective, the majority of Democratic voters are just as accountable for the slide into fascism we've experienced the last 7 years as the people they've elected to Congress.

The ones who elected Democrats who have enabled the Bush administration every damned step of the way.

The ones who elected Democrats who voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act.

The ones who elected Democrats who can't see their way clear to ending the debacle in Iraq.

Those who elected Democrats who voted for Kyl/Lieberman.

Those who elected the 219 Democrats who voted to pas HR 1955 in the House, and the 8 Democrats who sponsored it.

The ones who elected Democrats who voted to table the impeachment of Cheney.

The ones who will vote in their primary for a candidate who is one of the above, or who will continue in that tradition once in office.

It's one thing to vote somebody into office with the expectation that they will represent you. It's another to enable their atrocious performance in Congress by supporting them in any way, or by voting for more people who cannot be trusted to put people before power.

In my opinion, a Democrat who TRULY wanted fundamental change for the better would support the candidate who truly stands for that change, not just in campaign speeches, but in platform and record.

If Democratic voters don't have the courage to stand up and nominate someone outside the corrupt establishment, why the FUCK should they expect their reps to demonstrate that same courage in office?

The only thing standing between Dennis Kucinich and a win are the enablers in his own party.

In a general election, when there's only one major opponent, people would hear about him, and he'd be electable. Obviously, since he supports the best interests of the vast majority of voters.

Instead, we're likely to get someone who supports the minority who funded him or her; those that profit off of cheap labor and privatization.

an inept gasbag with great ideas he can't produce.

I'll take the corrupt enabler-- at least we know what we're in for.

(Damn, I really MUST hide these Kucinich threads)

corrupt enablers or someone with a verified record of supporting and defending the constitution, democratic principles, and social and economic justice. Not just ideas, but action as well.

With that in mind, I'd go with the person I know is at least willing to make an effort to achieve those goals, rather than with those whose rhetoric says one thing, and actions say another.

Sad state of affairs when democrats become complacent even when their elected officials fail them.

how our reps are going to vote? Secondly, I live in Vermont: Pat Leahy, Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch are my reps. Should I vote against them because they've occasionally voted in a way I disagree with? By and large, they're all on the right side of things.

And who would be better out of my state, out of other states?

It's disgusting to blame this all on the dem voter, and particularly on DU dems.

It's my personal perspective on the situation, and just as valid as anyone else's.

Accountability is not a one-way street. If we are going to hold ANYONE accountable, we start with ourselves. If we can't do that, then any blaming of anyone else is nothing more than hypocrisy.

I understand that my statements are bound to make people uncomfortable, and to spark automatic defensive reactions. If DUers don't like my pov, of course they are welcome to say so. That doesn't make it any less valid.

Some may be able to get beyond the initial defensive reaction and think about what I'm saying; some may not. That's fine.

The Democratic Party is not sacred. It is just as susceptible to the very attitudes and actions we love to criticize in others. What is better for the long-term health of the party? To be aware of that, to pay attention and hold ourselves to a high standard of accountability, or to close our eyes and minds to dysfunctions and pretend that we are snow-white, innocent, blameless victims and/or heroes?

Excellent post...and I didn't sense even an ounce of baloney in it! ;)

:hug:
DR

:hi:

:hug:

With a mediocre record at best...very best...

In fact he was a disaster in his only executive job and is unaccomplished as a Congressman...

I remember a poll being posted on DU about a month or so ago showing Kucinich being creamed by the various Republican candidates by substantial margins while most of the rest of the Dem candidates hovered around 50/50.

People who honestly think Kucinich can win the general election are living in a ideological fantasy land. It is so typical for ideologues of any stripe to naively think the majority of people agree with them.

Three words:

First SCHIP Vote.

That should tell everything how he would run his administration. He's run the Oval Office like a Left-wing version of Chimpy. He'd veto everything that wasn't 100% to his liking. And there is plenty of history to back this up. He'd likely start major fights with Congressional Dems, cause legislative gridlock, and end up getting the government shut down because nothing would ever get passed. This isn't a good thing, this is a really bad thing.

-Edit- MOAR!!!

http://www.mahablog.com/2007/02/24/the-kucinich-question/

(Emphasis mine)


Face it,

W - RW + LW = DK

Wouldn't that prove he's electable?

I do not think it means what you think it does.

Electable means that people will vote for him. Primaries in 2004 and all current polling data shows that people will NOT vote for him, therefore he is not electable.

I remember back in 2000 laughing at the t.v. set during a debate.
"Man, that asshole has the same chance as a snowball in hell."



Guess, they're service ice smoothies in hell these days.

First of all the chimpster was NOT elected. Secondly, he had the weight of the party heavies behind him.

What is this country kidding itself for? It elects boobs to the Presidency all the time. Practically nobody is "unelectable."

A country that will vote overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan is not likely to support Dennis Kucinich's politics.

... a pygmy star trek character. He will NEVER get elected president of the USA.

Should it matter what he looks like? Of course not. Human beings are what they are and MOST of them judge people, every one they meet, on appearance.

TV and movies train us to do it even more. You are what you look like, that is the way it is.

Because he's unelectable.

This is the guy at 1% in Iowa, right?
If he's electable, please tell me which primaries you think he's going to win. Cant wait!

:eyes:

In my Congressional district in metro Cleveland about 20 miles east of his.

Not very impressive for Ohio's "favorite son". I don't see him being any more relevant this time.

What primaries do you think he is going to win?

It's as if they think he is going to win via visualization or
chanting over a pile of crystals.

He could always use more money for additional exposure and staff. The corporate powers are doing everything to keep him from advancing, even Keith Olbermann laughed at a silly comment from someone and to the best of my knowledge this liberal anchor has never had him on the show. It does not matter that he voted for the people most of the time :(

On paper, that makes him a hell of a lot more electable than Hillary.

The majority of people are very affected by what they see, and psychological studies have proven that the "beautiful child" gets the most positive attention.

This may seem very shallow, but unfortunately, this seems to be true.

People hear what they see.

it's just that he gets about 2% support among Democrats, which means about 1% support of the general population. That's what makes him unelectable.

It's not allowed in this country today! :sarcasm: