Blue Jersey's Second Presidential Strawpoll

When I added the parenthetical comment I accidentally deleted the "much".  Sorry 'bout that.

And just to clarify, I wasn't saying the commenter is stupid personally, rather that the faux political construct 'electability' is stupid.

George Bush is a strutting example of "a political construct" that is false and stupid (a catch all oversimplification) but the creep has managed to "win" two presidential elections!

It's ironic that someone like me has to point this out to someone like you.

I guess your supporting good old Dennis Kucinich? Go throw away your vote again....how about Ralph Nader while your at it?

What about Barney Frank? If electabilty is meaningless he might as well run too....how about Charlie Rangal or even Nancy Pelosi?

That is the dumbest thing yet to be posted....

I know, Warren Beatty for president.....or Martin Sheen! why not?

pathetic....

Thanks for that flashback to the 50s. And now, back to the 21st century.

Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton are electable.

What is your next stupid assumption?

The interesting thing about the way the Democratic primary is shaping up is that you could probably make as strong (if not a stronger one) of an argument about the electability of the field's "second-tier" candidates like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson as you could about the field's "first tier candidates", Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.

I think that one could also argue that for Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, winning the Democratic nomination is a much tougher challenge than defeating whomever the Republican nominee would be.

For these reasons and others, I agree that it is a waste of time, energy, and bandwith to debate electability, but at the same time, I would also argue that Kucinich's lack of credibility as a competitive candidate should raise serious questions about his commitment to the issues for which he claims to be an advocate.

As I have mentioned in the past, Kucinich was pro-life when he ran for Governor of Ohio, but then became pro-choice when he ran for Congress.  He has been an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, but as a Presidential candidate who clearly did not have a chance of victory, his candidacy was perfectly positioned as an obstacle to the candidacy of Howard Dean's, the only candidate running in 2004 who could have actually won the election and ended the war.

There were two moments in the 2004 campaign where Kucinich's role as an obstacle were most apparent.  The first was when he finished a distant second to Dean (44%-22%) in the MoveOn.org straw poll that required a candidate to get 50% of the vote to obtain an early endorsement from the organization, which would have given the already skyrocketing Dean campaign an exponetially powerful boost.  The second and most significant moment was in Iowa when he instructed his supporters to caucus for John Edwards, who was still a vocal supporter for the War in Iraq at the time, and not Dean.

When you represent a district as liberal as Kucinich's and want to be able to travel around the country at the expense of committed progressives, it is very easy to put together a platform of progressive positions together and never have to be accountable for them.  Of course, at the same time, he might really believe everything that he says.

But when you consider his willingness to flip-flop on an issue as important as a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions and play a role in the derailing of the Presidential aspirations of a better positioned fellow progressive, I think that everything that the man stands for and which I agree, starting with marriage equality and ending with single-payer universal health care becomes suspect.

As much as I respect Jay and Nick and every other progressive here who thinks that everything that Kucinich has to say is music to our ears, I implore you to question your support for someone who is willing to say what you want to hear more than be a true leader for all of our country's citizens and reconcile both our dreams of a more progressive future and the reality of living in a democratic republic with hundreds of millions of other people with a wide range of views on a wide range of issues.

So allow me to reiterate my point, because I obviously wasn't clear enough for some.  "Electable" doesn't mean anything.  It didn't mean anything when people said it about John Kerry, and it certainly doesn't mean anything now.  As I wrote earlier, if you want to talk about fundraising, poll numbers, message, image, etc., then great.  But using one, faux scientific, all-things-to-all-people word like "electable" is nonsense.

At my original blog, I covered the 2004 race for the Democratic nomination for a national audience.  Not many people did that sort of horserace blogging at the time, so carved myself a nice little niche that eventually paved my way into establishment politics.  I say this not to brag, but rather to point out how damaging debates dominated by false, media-driven constructs like "electability" can be to our party.  So I seriously suggest that people strike it from their political vocabularies.

Oh, and I know you're a big fan of the word 'myopic' -- who knows, maybe it's the most recent entry in your word of the week calendar, in which case I applaud your interest in continued education -- but your use of it to criticize my comment in this context is about as far off as it gets.

I think we can be forgiven for not rushing to embrace a vacuous term used by the media for dumbing down politics to a nerve-deadening level.

XT

You are right that it is real and Scott is also right to say that it's a bad thing.

Ideally (you must really hate that word, eh? ;-) people would make up their own minds based on the facts before them and their own highest callings of Conscience.

As for Warren Beatty; go rent a copy of "Bulworth"...watch it 5 times and call me in the morning.

I lived through the 80s, and I am pretty sure they were wrong.

Carol Shea Porter (D-NH1) was "unelectable" this past year and the party was pissed that this social worker, anti-war advocate was primarying their chosen candidate, Jim Craig.  She not only beat Craig in the primary, but beat Jim Bradley (R-NH1).

Electability is just a way to say, "Nobody like her."  It's not based on any evidence or facts, just feeling.  And it's a feeling that is, quite often, dead wrong.

Yeah, I know, shameless plug.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

I might talk Tom Wyka into making the drive with me.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

I remain genuinely undecided on the 2008 race.  By this time in 2003, I was on the Kerry bandwagon -- before almost everybody abandoned it and then all circled back 'round again.  One of the lessons I learned from our experience in 2004 is to be (perhaps like you, Scott) a skeptic on the concept of "electability."

But in my view, the problem with electability is not that it doesn't exist; it's that we keep running into trouble when we try to define it.  Too many of us (and I have often been guilty of this) treat elections like a job hiring decision: Pick the person with the best experience and credentials for the job.  But if that were the real definition of "electability," we'd be in the second term of the Gore Administration right now and John Kerry (veteran, prosecutor, Lt. Gov., Senator) or Bill Richardson (Congressman, ambassador, cabinet secretary, governor) would be at the top of the heap for '08.

So if electability isn't about qualifications -- or, at least, is about substantially more than qualifications -- then what is it?  Without regard for past experience as such, it is preparedness for the task at hand by virtue of study and preparation?  Or is it the ability to motivate voters, volunteers and donors?  (That option would make Howard Dean, in retrospect, the most electable candidate from 2004.)  Or is it even more abstract that that -- is it simply "zing," something that (like obscenity) we know when we see?

Answered in the affirmative, each of those questions points in a different direction for 2008.

So, I wholeheartedly agree that we should pick one of the electable candidates in our primary.  Now, which ones fit the bill?

Some call him a joke, but if i could wave a wand and pic one of the candidates on the list, it's gotta be Dennis.

  why the hell not?

activist for hire.

The question for wanting Kucinich as President is if he can actually get anything done, or if the Congress will just wait his four years out.

Frankly, I like many of his positions but I can't see him getting any of them enacted.  That makes him a non-starter in my book.

(Sorry, Jay.)

I added one more.

Here it is:

Kucinich Is The Real Deal: Bottom Lines... (0 / 0)

...Kos is wrong in his summary "judgment" on this man.

Kos suffers from a hubris problem...and that's understandable with so many people sucking up to the guy.  Power/adulation are corrosive.

I understand the "electability" argument; that's why I'm not betting on Kucinich becoming the nominee...and that's a shame.

Granted; Kucinich doesn't fit preconceived notions/prejudices that most folks have about who can be President. Therefor he starts out "behind the eight ball".  Period.

The people who love Kucinich's ideas/ideals/positions are the heart/soul of the Democratic Party...even if they won't vote for him in a primary because he's "unelectable".

Instant runoff voting would go a long way towards allowing people to vote for their ideal as opposed to compromising based on who you think is "electable".....but that's another subject.

I confess to believing that most of America isn't ready for a short older guy who has various "oddball" aspects in his life that I don't need to articulate here.  I confess that I  believe that the what the msm and the Rovian Republicans would do to a Kucinich candidacy would make what they did to Howard Dean seems like a loving massage.

So, in case anyone is worried, I'm not likely to "waste my vote" for him in a primary...and that's a shame.

Frankly, the Kucinich candidacy is not worth us fighting over. 

Let's all agree to disagree and move on to areas where there are more direct impacts on NJ politics...like cleaning up our pay to play/campaign finance situations etc.

Let me put it this way; whoever the US President is, is a major factor in whether there will even BE a human race to evolve.

The threats/damage to the biosphere under 8 years of Bush contribute mightily to the prospects of our extinction.

If there IS a human race a five hundred years from now; I dare say they will be far far far more evolved on all manner of levels compared to us...and (as long as I'm daring) I predict that that evolution will not be the result of conventional Darwinian selection (which takes many thousands of years). 

The genie is out of the bottle.  Human genomic science/biology (there's the NJ hook! ;-) is already being applied in ways that reach across generations.

I arrived too late to hear Kucinich speak (by the way is anybody out there putting it up on the web????) so I don't know how wacky his presentation was or was not...but I do know that the prospects for the survival/evolution future of our species are something that I do actually care deeply about.  Does that make me "nuts" too?

Now it appears that his reversal was more recent and solely for the purpose of constructing an image as a pure progressive champion.  Good for Kos for seeing through it.

One thing that I remember from my experiences on the Dean campaign was that his message was the same for all audiences.  He never attempted to downplay his position on gun control that many progressives like myself found distasteful.

In addition to being a credible progressive, I think the most attractive quality as a candidate that Dean brought to the table was his genuine sincerity, especially after years of Clinton's triangulations and Gore's reinventions of himself.

Kucinich rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

If you call Congressman Kucinich's credibility on abortion and his sincere transfer of on his view on abortion, then you call in NARAL's credibility on endorsing him the last 3 cycles and calling him the strongest candidate to protect a woman's right to choose...unlike Hillary Clinton who has been leaning towards Pro-Life votes of recent since Kerry lost in 2004 so she can be more moderate.

Kucinich primarily supports sex education and funding for new contraceptives and improving current ones.

Others on abortion according to Issues2000.com

(Joe Biden) Rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)

(Wes Clark) Lifelong pro-life Republican until 2001.

(Hillary Clinton) Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. - Mixed votes since 2005 on abortion rights.

(Barack Obama) No record because hes only been there for 2 years.

At the same time, NARAL has no intrest in questioning the integrity of his supportive votes.  If they did, they would not be nearly as effective as they are in protecting a woman's right to choose.

I know that when my wife's first pregnancy ended in a miscarriage, having seen the baby's heartbeat and lights on the monitor, my opinion about life beginning at conception changed.  What didn't change is my opinion about a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

And this is where I question Kucinich's integrity and sincerity.  Taking the position that a woman does or does not have the right to make her own reproductive decisions are such bedrock principles, I cannot comprehend the mental calculus that must take place for a person's mind to be changed from one position to the other.

The only explanaions that make any sense to me is a political calculus like the one made by Kucinich or an emotional breakdown like the one experienced by the woman who was the subject of the original Roe v Wade decision.

It is also possible that Kucinich has never held and will never hold a serious position on this issue.  He could have decided to be pro-life for his failed gubernatorial run, decided to stick with it so he would at least appear consistent, and then flipped when he realized that he could never be a prorgressive poster boy, Department of Peace or no Department of Peace, with a pro-life position.

I spent a couple of hours reading through a ton of comments yesterday at kos http://www.dailykos....

My own conclusion is that Kucinich is a sincere and real person/pol.

He is not a perfected saint; and has obvious flaws...but I don't think he's "faking" his positions for political gain....he's not that stupid or that simple a human being. 

Again, unless we ever get Instant Runoff Voting http://www.instantru... there is zero chance that someone like Kucinich will ever emerge "from the pack" anyway. 

Why? Because most folks will indeed assume that he is "unelectable" and choose not to "waste their vote" on a "loser" who is a bit "odd" (even if they actually AGREE with most of what he says!). 

Yes I know...that's an ugly and harsh reality that is patently unfair; but that's the "way it is".

"Electability" is, in some sense, the sum of all expectations/prejudices/fears/assumptions etc writ larger than life as it is a projection of what we think OTHER people believe. 

Meanwhile, he'll continue to run and play a constructive role in the debate as he'll at least put the progressive arguments on the table and shame some of the "mainstream candidates" into tweaking their positions a bit. 

Ya wanna talk about someone who's "unelectable"....Hell, I actually miss Al Sharpton's brilliant and righteous voice! 

I pray that whoever wins the Democratic nomination has the courage to run and speak their mind/hearts with fearless/loving abandon. 

btw

Does anyone doubt (at this point) that Gore and Kerry would have beaten Bush (by enough of a margin to overcome the electoral fraud) had they had the balls to cut the bullshit, stop listening to the "pros" and just be themselves?

Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate who voted against the war in Iraq and is the only candidate who has never wavered on his views due to popularity and polls. He's been against this war from day 1 when despite what polls have showed throughout the last 4 years, based on his inital research.

Whether he wins the nomination or not, the more support he gets will send a message to the nominee that Democrats are tired of same old democrat do nothing nonsense that happens in DC.

John Edwards most electable? I don't think he came even close to helping Kerry carry and southern states in 04. Barack Obama? I heard another 'pro-hope speech' today from him and I still don't know what he believes in. I do know he opposes gay marriage, opposes cutting off funding for the Iraq war even though he admits there is no military solution and providing an honest healthcare plan. Maybe he doesn't believe in that in his 2 years of experience in congress, but I'm sure polls tell him to. And Hillary Clinton? I would vote for an independent over her if she became the nominee because there is no candidate more disingenous, dishonest and hypocritical than her.

So what is this electablity nonsense. I'm not voting for someone who either by a mistake of poor research or wanting to appear 'hawkish' sent 3200 brave Americans to their graves. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if i voted for someone like that.

and if you saw Dennis Kucinich at Morristown or in Maplewood yesterday, you know how much of an honest politician he is...and before reading DailyKos's piece on his mayorality in Cleveland and his stance on abortion, do a little research on your own and see what it is about before writing him off.(  http://www.truthdig.... )

I'll be proud to cast my vote for Kucinich in 2008...and for the record, Kucinich is the first candidate to formally campaign in New Jersey, unlike his opponents who come to raise money.

"Kucinich speaks for the majority of Americans" - The Daily Record's Fred Snowflack after Kucinich's rally with Morris County Democrat Chairman Lew Candura which attracted over 120 people on 72 hour notice.

It's still way early to make a commitment on the 08 primary; but I'm not above considering the "electability" factor.

The article/interview you link to is well worth reading.

Here's a snippet I recommend to Governor Corzine:

TRUTHDIG: Twenty-eight years ago, you were the "Boy Mayor" of Cleveland-the youngest-ever mayor of any major U.S. city. And you were also the first mayor to put a city into default since the Great Depression. What happened there?

KUCINICH: When people find out the nature of the default, they're pretty shocked. Because what happened is that Cleveland went into default because I refused a bank's demand to sell Cleveland's municipal electric system as the price of renewal of the city's credit.

TRUTHDIG: What happened to your political aspirations because of that episode?

KUCINICH: Corporations aren't used to public officials who say no.  So I couldn't get a job in Cleveland. I was not able to make a living in this city. It was very tough to win any elected office. But an interesting thing happened:  I saved the municipal electric system because I refused to accept this Faustian bargain that was offered me by the city's lead bank, which was: You sell the city's electric system, and the bank will give you-the city-$50 million worth of new credit. But if you don't sell, we're going to put the city of Cleveland into default. And so this was a moment when I had to determine who I was, what I was made of. Was I ready to take a stand on behalf of the people, or was I just about to become like anyone else who caves in and goes along to get along?

---

Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)

Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)

--------

John Edwards

Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

PATRIOT Act ok, if watchdogs protect civil liberties. (May 2003)

Death penalty OK despite flaws, on state-by-state decision. (Feb 2004)

Supports the death penalty. (Jan 2004)

Rated 63% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)

Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)

The Israelis do not have a partner for peace right now. (Oct 2004)

Renegotiate NAFTA rather than cancel it. (Feb 2004)

Right to bear arms protected by Second Amendment, with rules. (Mar 2004)

Guns are about independence-don't mess with that. (Oct 2003)

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Supporting Iraq war OK, but how war was conducted not OK. (Feb 2004)

Voted for war in Iraq but against $87B-and it's consistent. (Jan 2004)

Saddam's trial will reveal atrocities, but won't end terror. (Jan 2004)

Don't negotiate with Arafat, but build trust with envoy. (Jan 2004)

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)