Kucinich is by far the most electable candidate

Where the Votes Are
by Dan Brown

Simple math shows that progressives are on the rise, and that the candidate able to harness that electoral power can win.

The 2000 election numbers (rounded off):
50 million - Bush
50 million - Gore
3 million - Nader

Now it's easy enough to add together 50 million and 3 million to deduce from the fact that 53 million is BIGGER than 50 million that AMERICA VOTES FOR LIBERALS but let's dig a little deeper.

Every election consultant worth his or her salt believes in the 40/40/20 rule - it's like a religion to them.

Applying that rule shows us that:

40 million - core Republicans for Bush
40 million - core Democrats for Gore
20 million - "independents" split between Gore and Bush

Splitting the "independents" shows us that:

10 million - independents for Bush
10 million - independents for Gore

We know the "core" is in the middle, because that's how a bell curve works. Applying the bell curve to the independents gives us:

5 million - independents for Bush who wished he were more "conservative"
5 million - independents for Bush who wished he were more "compassionate" - lol, okay, liberal
~~AND~~
5 million - independents for Gore who wished he were more "conservative"
5 million - independents for Gore who wished he were more progressive, liberal, or populist

That's the way a bell curve works - I didn't invent this concept. Now, Nader got 3 million votes. It's pretty safe to surmise that ALL the votes for Nader are lined up on the ONE SIDE of the Gore bell curve, isn't it?

So then we look at the bell curves, and the numbers:

5 million - wished Bush were more conservative - voted Bush
40 million - core Republicans, voted Bush
5 million - wished Bush were more "liberal" - voted Bush

5 million - wished Gore were more conservative - voted Gore
40 million - core Democrats, voted Gore
5 million - wished Gore were more progressive, populist - voted Gore
3 million - wished Gore were more progressive, populist - voted Nader

Now, again putting aside the simple math that 53 million beats 50 million any way you look at it, we look at another interesting phenomenon:

48 million - core Democrats, plus liberal-leaning independents, plus Nader voters
~~ NEARLY EQUALS ~~
50 million - conservative-leaning Bush voters, core Republicans, liberal leaning Bush voters - EVERY BUSH VOTE

So where are the voters to cover that spread?

5 million - WHO ALREADY VOTED FOR GORE ONCE

So how many potential candidates can make it a race ONLY FOR FORMER GORE VOTERS?

Only one. The one that's already gotten the endorsement of the Green Party 2000 Vice Presidential candidate. The one who's already all BUT gotten the endorsement of the Green Party 2000 Presidential candidate. The one who takes his district with 74%. The one who takes 50% of the Republican vote in his district.

You guess which one.

We are living in the past if we think the voting public is not ready to elect a progressive, populist President. This is not the past. The key in 2004 is to beat the Republican theft spread - the Republicans will use black box voting, like they did in Georgia and Nebraska to steal the election if it's close.

The best way to beat the Republican theft spread is to start with 8 MILLION PROGRESSIVE VOTES IN YOUR POCKET before even going up against Bush - making the race a race SOLELY for former Gore voters.

Some Democratic activists, and their "core" brethren, think that you can assure victory by making it a HEAD-TO-HEAD RACE FOR 5 MILLION PREVIOUS GORE VOTERS AND 5 MILLION PREVIOUS BUSH VOTERS. I fail to see the logic in thinking that 10 MILLION SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE is greater than 8 MILLION IN THE POCKET.

Not bloody likely.

You'd have to be capable of believing that 50 million conservative votes versus 53 million progressive votes means "AMERICA DOES NOT VOTE FOR LIBERALS" in order to get sold on that kind of hogwash.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

Modified. Original at:
http://www.minnesotaforkucinich.com/Articles/Local/WheretheVotesAre.pdf


I was curious whether or not the 40/40/20 analysis I did above would hold up, so I measured it against the VNS exit polling numbers from 2000 and came up with this:

2000 Exit Polls Prove 40/40/20 Analysis - Kucinich Strongest Against Bush
by Dan Brown

An analysis of the 2000 Election exit polling data confirms what the 40/40/20 analysis determined – Democrats will be strongest running the most progressive candidate they can find.

We start with the source of the exit polling data from VNS, found at:
http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

This data clearly legitimizes the conclusions found through the use of the 40/40/20 rule to analyze the electorate, and the likely effect on the 2004 election.

The graphs says, that of the 13157 people polled:

39% self-identified as Democrats.
35% self-identified as Republicans.
27% self-identified as Independents.

(Not far off from the general framework of the 40/40/20 rule.)

Of the "independents":
45% voted for Gore.
47% voted for Bush.

(Roughly half each, as the my analysis pointed out would be the case.)

However, as it related to Nader:
2% of self-identified Democrats voted for Nader.
1% of self-identified Republicans voted for Nader.
6% of self-identified independents voted for Nader.

If we project these percentages to the 2000 election numbers, they tell us that:

There were 40,560,000 Democratic votes available. (I used "40 million" in my analysis) 104m X 39%

There were 36,400,000 Republican votes available. (Wow, weaker than I thought - again, I used "40 million" in my analysis) 104m X 35%

Nader got 811,200 Democratic votes. 40.56m X 2%
Nader got 364,000 Republican votes. 36.4m X 1%
Nader got 1,684,8000 "independent" votes. 28.08m X 6%

(Not far from his total take of about 3 million, so it looks right so far)

Unfortunately, the "vote by ideology" numbers aren't as useful as they would be if they were broken down by affiliation, but looking at them tells us a lot about the "bell curve" of the Gore vote.

First of all, "moderate" used by a Bush voter probably means "more liberal" and "moderate" used by a Gore voter probably means "more conservative" than the candidate they voted for (or that's what they thought the question was that was being asked), so each term is seen as being used in relation to the vote cast.

So, projected to the numbers, the total looks like this:

20,800,000 self-identified "liberals"
52,000,000 self-identified "moderates"
30,160,000 self-identified "conservative"

But much more telling is the bell curve in the Gore total:

Gore got 16,640,000 liberal votes.
Gore got 27,040,000 moderate votes.
Gore got 5,127,200 conservative votes.

Nader got 1,248,000 liberal votes.
Nader got 1,040,000 moderate votes.
Nader got 51,272 conservative votes.

In the bell curve analysis following the 40/40/20 rule strictly, Gore got "40 million" core/moderate votes (these would be people who in the above example self-identified as closely related to what they thought the "middle" would be), and then under the 40/40/20 rule (splitting the "20%" between Bush and Gore and then again to form the sides of the bell curve) he was determined to have gotten 5 million votes from people who thought he should be more "conservative" and 5 million from people who thought he should be more "liberal."

Thus the 40/40/20 rule determined the "shape" of the bell curve to be 80% center, and 10% on each side, but the numbers from the exit polling data present an even more shocking conclusion - the bell curve is even flatter and even more sloped to the "left" than the 40/40/20 rule was able to discern!

While the number of self-identified "Democrats" in the exit poll isn't far off the mark from where the 40/40/20 rule proposed it would be (and Bush and Gore both split each other's take, cancelling out each other's affiliation vote), the ideology numbers in the Gore column are really telling.

Fully 35% of Gore's voters identified themselves as to the "left" of the "core" if that is what they perceived as "liberal" in the question of ideology - relative to vote cast.

The 40/40/20 rule projected that 5 million, or 10%, of Gore's take voted for him wishing he were more "liberal or populist."

Only 55% of Gore's voters equated themselves with the "core" if by that is meant "moderate" (again, relative to vote cast).

But in the 40/40/20 rule analysis, the "core" or "center" of the bell curve is worth 80% - the bell curve is clearly much flatter than the 40/40/20 analysis alone was able to pick up.

Only, and most importantly, in the tally of the "conservatives" was the 40/40/20 analysis practically spot on. Exit polls show that about 5 million voted for Gore wishing he were more "conservative" and that's almost exactly what the 40/40/20 analysis predicted would be the case.

The 40/40/20 analysis, determining Kucinich as the strongest candidate, supposed that Kucinich would get all Nader's voters.

But from the above numbers, let's shave off the "conservatives" for Nader - if Kucinich takes the 2,228,000 "liberal" and "moderate" Nader voters (remember, the 40/40/20 analysis said 3 million), then Kucinich is almost exactly where the analysis said he'd be.

And the exit polling numbers put 5.1 million votes into the "conservative voted for Gore" pile - these are the votes that people say are the "at-risk" voters who wished Gore were more "conservative."

So Kucinich turns out to be almost exactly where the 40/40/20 rule analysis said he'd be - gaining about 3 million (exit poll = 2.3 million), and making the battle with Bush entirely a battle for 5 million previous Gore voters (exit poll = 5.1 million).

All-in-all, this data provides an explicit proof of the conclusions from the 40/40/20 rule analysis:

1. The "progressive" bell curve is flatter and more sloped to the "left" than the DLC and the "centrist conservative" Democratic candidates want us to believe, and

2. Kucinich is still the candidate positioned best to pick up Nader's votes and therefore is the ONLY candidate who can make the fight against Bush entirely a battle for 5 million previous Gore voters - not needing ANY previous Bush voters to beat Bush decisively.

Want to win? Nominate Kucinich.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

Modified. Original at:
http://imwithdennis.com/article-print-312.html

til it sinks in!

his polling at around 3% nationally indicates he is NOT electable.

there's no such confusion.

Look, there are plenty of reasons to like DK. Electability isn't one of them.

Nothing against Edwards and Kerry, I just think they will loose to Bush and that DK would not. And I'm not confused either.

doesn't mean YOU would vote for the candidate. It means the majority of voters would. There's nothing even approaching evidence that that is true of Kucinich.

I understand the concept. I agree with the original poster that more GE voters would vote for Kucinich than would vote for Kerry:

"We are living in the past if we think the voting public is not ready to elect a progressive, populist President. This is not the past. The key in 2004 is to beat the Republican theft spread - the Republicans will use black box voting, like they did in Georgia and Nebraska to steal the election if it's close.

The best way to beat the Republican theft spread is to start with 8 MILLION PROGRESSIVE VOTES IN YOUR POCKET before even going up against Bush - making the race a race SOLELY for former Gore voters.

Some Democratic activists, and their "core" brethren, think that you can assure victory by making it a HEAD-TO-HEAD RACE FOR 5 MILLION PREVIOUS GORE VOTERS AND 5 MILLION PREVIOUS BUSH VOTERS. I fail to see the logic in thinking that 10 MILLION SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE is greater than 8 MILLION IN THE POCKET"

just an also ran, he should be the most electable, but America isn't anywhere ready for a President Dennis.

Voting for the dead in the primaries also gives Dennis very little chance to even be noticed as a viable (still running) candidate.



And then there were none!
” JAFO”

Kucinich gets less than 1% of the national media attention, yet he's polling far higher than that in every state.

The media gives your salivating consumer masses the soma they need to be ineffective, and the public gobbles it up.

Then they spew it out in syllogistic sound-bites about "electability."

Meaningless.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

very astute analysis

he would already have the delegates rounded up to take the nomination

These things mean nothing. Kucinich gets less than 1% of the national media attention, yet is polling far higher than that in all states.

These self-fulfilling prophecies are meaningless as predictors. (remember when Dean was in and Kerry was out just before Iowa?)

Kucinich drew over 4500 people in Minnesota with less than 1% of the media coverage. Edwards drew less than 1990 during the same time span despite ceaseless media coverage, a fawning media, pretty hair, and a practiced smile.

These syllogistic self-affirming dismissals mean nothing.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

If you play against a stacked deck, you're going to lose no matter what your skill level.

At the grocer's just now I gave a copy of a little handout I made up (most of the text ripped off, I cheerfully admit, from the one that was offered here a week or so ago) to the checkout clerk, a young Black woman. She took it from me politely, but her interest completely sharpened when she started reading it. When another customer queued up behind me, she asked with real concern whether I needed it back or could she keep it. She put it down on top of her register shelf, but her eyes kept turning back to it as she finished getting me sorted.

I can only guess from watching her eye movement, but the parts that seemed to hook her most were
- DK saved Muny Light from corp takeover
- We haven't heard of him because the guys who own the big media outlets are the same guys that own the other corps, and they sure don't want someone like DK around.
- DK is for real change that benefits working people.

I might be wrong about what hooked her, of course, but I don't think I'm wrong about her becoming an instant convert.

I respect and admire you for trying, but I think 'conventional wisdom' has won this round.

We'll have to wait and see how things unfold.

....I plan on using such information when I make my case for DK at tonight's caucus.

DK IS ELECTABLE, we have to work to make it so. The possibilities are endless.

in the GE, he will be more electable than Bush because people care about jobs and health care, and the other candidates offer bandaids for grevious wounds.

If for no other reason than to have real numbers at your fingertips.

Let them argue different numbers, if they can back them up.

The "electability" meme is dead.

Everyone is electable if people vote for him or her.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

This mathematical proof of the existence of God, stolen from the Net:

Let x = y
xy = yy
xy-xx = yy-xx
x(y-x) = (y+x)(y-x)
x = x+y but x = y so
x = x+x
x = 2x
1 = 2
0 = 1
so if there are no gods, there is one god.

Throwing lies at the wall and seeing if they will stick is no way to win an argument.

Thanks for playing.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

NAFTA/WTO and PATRIOT ACT alone i have one DK volunteer who is voted buchanan last time and instead of nader she is like if DK isnt the nominee i am voting Libertarian

And Kucinich, even though I like him, is not only "not in Kerry's rearview mirror", he has been "lapped" numerous times.

but that doesn't make it true.

He does exceptionally poorly in national polls.

that DK's relatively poor performance in the primary season to date somehow relates to the GE numbers analysis provided by the original poster. Remember the premise of original post is Kucinich as General Election candidate. Certainly, some argue that DK will turn off moderate voters, but to argue that he is doing poorly in primary misses the point of the analysis completely and suggests a knee-jerk response rather than providing any consideration to the premise.

there simply isn't any evidence that Dennis has a huge base of support that somehow is remaining invisible during the primaries.

In national polls - not primaries, not polls of just Democrats.... national polls of all Americans, he does very very poorly.

I think the over-optimism comes from a belief that

a) Of the huge number of non-voters, most are progressive and
b) it is possible to get these non-voters to vote in large numbers

I think both of those are false.

I see no evidence that non-voters are much different than voters, in political views. Further, we've had "outsider" candidates in every election I remember who claimed they could bring in the great numbers of "turned-off" Americans. They were all wrong.

will he not then have a huge base of support?

But you are quite correct to identify the two underlying beliefs. I do believe that many non-voters support progressive positions when it comes to economic issues like jobs, health care, and environment. Certainly, they may not self-identify as progressive or even democrat but if you put DK's 10 point plan in front of them, they tend to agree with it as common sense in my limited experience. Also, I do believe that some of these folks would vote if they felt their vote has not merely a choice between corporate candidates. Novel straight-talking candidates bring out more new voters than same old mealy mouthed song and dance.

I recall Wellstone and Ventura both being repeatedly and incorrectly dismissed as unelectable. But they were both so refreshingly honest and sincere that they attracted non-voters. Its the "emporer wears no clothes factor" that can get new non-voters to general election.

I don't usually quit a race after one lap.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

However considering the fact that in the primary lead off to determine a nominee, it is fairly common knowledge that the most ardent of supporters will show up to vote. It has often been stated and proven that the more liberal of the Democrat voters usually participate in these primaries.

Yet among that populace Kucininch barely registers in the polls.

How is that abnormality explained in your analysis?

Why is it so hard to accept that Kucinich's popularity among Democrats is accurately stated in the voting booth?

Dookus you are 100% right on.

Anyone who thinks that a fringe lefty like Kucinich is "electable" is delusional.

First off, the idea that "Independents" are split evenly between conservatives and democrats is idiotic. They are mostly fence sitters without strong ideological convictions, meaning the notion that half of Gore's independent supporters wanted him to be more liberal is a joke. Additionally, you make a false assumption to think every Democrat that voted for Gore would vote for DK -- I'd be surprised if a majority of them did. DK supporters really do live in a fascinating place if you honestly think he could get within 20 points of Bush.

Sad but true. We saw a similar phenomenon when we nominated lefties McGovern and Mondale -- moderate Democrats voted GOP by the millions.

Rather than confused recourse to primary showings to date. But I don't think that Kucinich would loose a third of democrats if he was actually treated seriously and with respect, which presumably comes with becoming nominee. Maybe 5% of democrats at most would be in play in the manner you suggest. One-third is totally arbitrary and capricious, and without any evidentiary support.

Kucinich would lose at least a quarter of the Democratic vote to Bush, maybe as much as a third. You want evidence? Look at what happened when we nominated lefties like McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. Democrats voted Republican by the millions. Kucinich makes McGovern look like a centrist, and I think it's safe to say that he'd get wiped out by an even larger margin.

What percentage of democrats voted for republicans rather than vote McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis? Nothing as wildly high as one quarter I would humbly suggest. Anyway, its all about the margins so even five percent would be an important factor. Indeed, five percent Nader may take in many states in 2004 is huge concern and of course another reason for DK's electability.

But since you bring it up, in 80 and 84 the democrats who voted Republican were labelled Reagan democrats. Parma, OH is one home of Regaan democrats which is in Kucinich's district. Many of these folks tend to support Kucinich very strongly. I don't think DK's problems would be from the lunch-pail set. Rather its the latte elites that Kucinich might loose. But I don't think so.

Or if you don't have anything but bombastic rhetoric, save it for your Kerry rallies.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

I worked for the Dukakis campaign in 1988, because I thought he was "moderate" enough to be "electable". No way in hell he was the liberal in that race.

As a matter of fact, Dukakis even waffled on the "are you a liberal?" question, just like another candidate from Massachusetts we know.

McGovern was liberal, yes, but don't forget this is the same election that brought us CREEP and Watergate-- not to mention the hurt feelings of the Humphrey/Muskie/Daly axis, who did NOTHING for McGovern until October.

2004 is a LOT different from 1972. The two are not even comparable.

I am serious: do you honestly believe that? Especially after the job Shrub has done in four years?

I think that Gore 2000 voters would vote for Inanimate Carbon Rod as long as it's against Dubya. I would highly doubt ANY of those voters would vote for Shrub.

:grr:

While your analysis is for the most part correct, it is overly optimistic. A Kucinich-Bush race would indeed become a race for former Gore supporters, but more than likely it would include a portion of the "core". Basically, Kucinich would need to sweep both the leaners and the base for Gore, which is very hard to do. Instead, I would much prefer a candidate that puts Bush's supporters in play. Because if Bush has to spend time winning over voters he had in 2000, that means its easier to hold on to our support. Will some on the left leave if Kerry or Edwards is the nominee? Of course. But that will be more than made up for by the millions of voters that voted for Bush in 2000 that Kerry and Edwards, but not Kucinich, puts in play.

Next question.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

Do you believe that Kucinich is to the left of Gore?

I've asked you this before and you've never answered. Please give me an answer.

If he isn't to the left of Gore or any dem candidate running in 04 who is?

Cutting the defense budget and creating a department of peace, this is NOT the time to cut defense with Al Qaeda after us. This department of peace I studied up on, deals with domestic issues that state governments already provide, sounds silly to me.

He believes strongly in what he says and I respect him for not being phony, I just cannot agree with the message.

So that kind of stereotyping is useless.

Most of Kucinich's positions are traditional, Democratic, farmers' and workers' rights positions, but he deviates from the Democratic Party line on NAFTA and health care.

He's personally conservative on abortion, but understands full liberty and equality rights for women, and targets the root causes of inequality - health care, education, providing full access to sex ed and contraception, differing dramatically from Republicans on those points.

So whatever motive you have in labelling Kucinich left or not left, put your cards on the table and let's talk positions, and then you can make up your own mind.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

You say I get to make up my own mind. Therefore, this is why I say that Kucinich is to the left of Al Gore:

1) He is opposed to capital punishment. This position is to the left of Gore's.
2) He is opposed to letting state define their own gun laws. This position is to the left of Gore's.
3) He wants to pull the US out of NAFTA and the WTO. This position is to the left of Gore's.
4) He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. This position is to the left of Gore's.

I could go on for quite a while, but as the above poster noted, its pretty obvious that Kucinich is significantly left of Al Gore. This brings up an important point. If the voting population is, as you have asserted, a bell curve, how can you possibly get more votes by moving to the left?

You can't.

First off.. he would need to FIRST win something.. or even come close.. which he hasnt outside of Hawaii..

Electable = Can Win...

Hes likable.. but hes not electable.. Games Over, hes out.. time to go away IMO.


P.S. hes to short.. no one has won that was his size since Madison.

And with less than 1% of the national media spotlight, he's brought in up to 27% of the vote in the primaries.

Show me how milquetoast poseur candidates who don't differ from Bush on the death penalty, and the invasion of Iraq, privatized boondoggle health care, and NAFTA are going to bring regular people out to vote in November, regardless of how well they're doing with Democratic activists and zealots.

If Kerry or Edwards had to contend with less than 1% of the national media spotlight, they'd already have dried up and blown away like the unsubstantial messages they stand for.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

He gets no media attention because he 0 chance of anything at all. Its a waste of very valuable and expensive air time... This is a Chicken and Egg thing IMO..

I've heard plenty enough about DK...

Kucinich would be, in my opinion, an ineffective executive. He doesn't have executive experience at the national level, I don't know of any national security experience, his personality doesn't appeal to me, and I don't agree with his ideas. I guarantee that there are many Democrats who agree with at least three of those things, if not all four. So, in my opinion, Kucinich is not electable.

And you have too much faith in the bell curve, I think. This isn't 2000. I think in the end Kucinich would lose too much from the middle (people like me) and gain to little from the left.

I guess being a real Democrat must be hard for you then.

"With us or against us" you either always agree with the far left or you are not a democrat?


Wait a second that reminds me of BUSH.

It may remind you of Bush. The difference is that he is wrong in what he say's. The far left is correct, and since 1=1, differing opinions do not change the truth, and most certainly do not change what is correct.

You know this how?

1) Define an issue

2) Find what side the artists and intellectuals are on.

3) Go there

that artists and intellectuals are always right, and that they're always far left.

B. Most are leftists

"differing opinions do not change the truth," I'm sure Hitler would have said that too, I'm sure he KNEW he was "right" but he wasn't, maybe your view on life suits you, mine suits me and I am fine with anybody believing whatever they want.

But to close your mind off from new ideas is something I wouldn't have expected from democrats/left until I visited this forum.

But I don't sit around and think of how life suits "me".

We are one. I am you, you are me.

I forgot, Kucinich already has a monopoly on the Democratic platform, even though the convention is still months away. I forgot he's the only real Democrat around. I forgot, the far left is the only true way to go, everyone else is sheep. I forgot that nothing else is valid.

What don't I agree with? Pulling out of NAFTA. Department of the Peace. Decriminalization of marijuana. And to save you the time, just know that I already know that you're going to construe this as "doesn't want to save jobs, doesn't like peace, doesn't believe in free will." Sure, if you make the ridiculous assumption that these things - and the ideas of the far left in general - are the only way to go.

Well, you are wrong on every issue you raise. I don't believe you to be against peace, against fair trade...or free will. You just believe in a very old and clay footed dogma of how the world should be.

So, either one is practical (far-left) or dogmatic (everything else). You base this on what?

"if you want to keep getting the same results, keep doing things the same way"


process of reduction, the world is in a failed state.

Define how we got here.

Go the opposite direction.

Somehow I don't think a far-right and a far-left make a right.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

We need to stop enabling neoconservatives and archconservatives. This does not mean swinging in the polar opposite direction. I think it means taking a moderate approach. Otherwise, why not just up and become communist?

We got here by Capitalism

We either need to make capitalism a Social "thing", or we will continue to fail.

How many bridges do you think a municipality can build with double cheeseburgers???

Or school buildings?

"How many bridges do you think a municipality can build with double cheeseburgers???"

I'm gonna take that at face value and assume you meant how much good can capitalism do. Well, I live in Charlotte, NC, and I gotta say, we don't have a river but we have plenty of overpasses. :) We also have a great school system with plenty of high-performing schools, beautiful parks, one and soon two major-league sports teams. We have galleries, three orchestras that I know of, theaters... Charlotte is a banking town, it's built on Wachovia and First Union and BankAmerica (which make up our skyline) and these institutions have received grants from the banks and their employees. I say capitalism has done pretty well for my city.

But since you speak of Corporations with a nice tone, I can't debate this with you, you are a corporatist

Go in the slums of your city and see how nice capitalism has done.

Just because there are still slums doesn't mean capitalism is evil. Nothing is perfect, and if we suddenly became a socialist nation, I think we would still have slums.

But I'm thinking there's no point to debating you, since all you can do is call me corporatist, accuse me of adhering to dogma, and making vast generalizations.

in his congressional district.

Or in France.

I'm sorry, if it takes THAT long to explain why Dennis Kucinich is electable (cough-cough) it shows that he clearly is not.

Do you still think he's the most electable candidate?