What if Kucinich supporters threw their support behind Edwards

[Zorra]

in order to insure that a *less progressive and (quite possibly) unelectable candidate that receives major corporate campaign funding and who is being shoved down our throats* does not get the nomination.

Personally, I think DK is far and away, hands down, no contest, the best candidate in the field. He says and does all the right things, and I view him as the best legislator of my lifetime. I've been a Kucinich supporter since day one.

But...if it comes down to the wire and it looks like Dennis has no shot at winning the primary, I am thinking about voting for John Edwards. John Edwards seems to me to be the most progressive candidate of the "big three", plus being the "big three" candidate that has the greatest probability of winning the general election.

If our democracy, our country, (perhaps even the planet), is to survive, a Democrat must take the WH in '08. And I've considered the possibility that a very possibly unelectable, or corporate friendly, candidate is being chosen for us in order to insure that either:

(A) A republican wins the election, or

(B) The most corporate friendly Democratic candidate is nominated, thereby insuring the continuation of corporate control of our government.

The combined votes of Kucinich and Edwards supporters in the primaries could provide enough of a majority to defeat the candidate that *by all appearances has already been chosen to be appointed* the Democratic nominee for president.

Now, I'll vote for anyone that is the Democratic nominee for president, even if they have already been "appointed". But having my candidate be "appointed" is something that, frankly, really pisses me off.:mad:

I was wondering if any other DUers were thinking along these lines; maybe this idea has already been posted and I missed it.

But I'd sure appreciate some other opinions/input from other DUers on this idea, particularly from DK supporters.

Thanks.

[riqster]

1. I think we go all the way through the primary and see how it pans out.

DK is gaining traction on a daily basis, we shouldn't slack off now.

[girl gone mad]

56. He didn't do it last time.

Unfortunately, he made a back room deal with one of our least electable candidates to team up and take out Dean, then dropped out and made his endorsement.

[Basileus Basileon]

2. He'd get a negligible bump in the polling,

and Hillary will still walk away with it? That where you were going?

[kysrsoze]

11. Thank you for your HRC trolling! You've managed to gather us all around the fascist candidate

[Basileus Basileon]

17. Since when is pointing out statistical likelihoods "trolling?"

And to claim she's a "fascist" is ridiculous.

[robinlynne]

58. Have you seen the DU poll of 150,000 registered dems?

I think she came in 5th, just before other.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Then Edwards would pickup an extra 2 or 3 percent...

what if all Edwards supporters through their weight behind Obama? Hell, if the national polls are to be believed, even that wouldn't be enough to get past Hillary.

[kysrsoze]

4. I'm supporting both. I like Kucinich a LOT, but unfortunately I'm being a realist

It seems the media won't allow anyone to say anything really good about him in the press.

[Basileus Basileon]

7. A possible alternative explanation

is that virtually nobody likes him.

[kysrsoze]

8. You're right. Just because his platform represents what the polls indicate U.S. citizens want...

your scientific determination tells us what is really the case. And hell, if Stewart, Colbert and Maher like him, that likely means their audience despises him.

[Basileus Basileon]

13. The polls also show him with a 28% favorable rating, better only than Gravel.

But I bet they all secretly love him.

[kysrsoze]

19. So how does 28% favorable translate to "virtually nobody?" I would figure HAL to be better at stati

Again, thanks for the troll.

[Basileus Basileon]

20. In the context of a Presidential run, a 28% favorable rating is indeed "virtually nobody."

And that isn't support; he's only got the support of a maximum 4% of Democrats. This is just people who think he's an okay dude.

[kysrsoze]

21. So tell it like it is, instead of putting your spin on it. Is that so difficult?

[Basileus Basileon]

25. Here I thought

"The reason the media is not covering his campaign is that he has fewer than 5% of the Democrats behind him and catastrophically low favorability ratings, and as such coverage of him would appeal to very few people," which is a completely non-spun statement, could be summed up with the statement "virtually nobody likes him."

[fenriswolf]

53. here is what the people think of dennis

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results?data=CA

hehe 4% my fanny

[Zorra]

9. Not true. Lots of Democrats like him. n/t

[Basileus Basileon]

15. On the Internet, yes.

In the real world? Not so much.

[fenriswolf]

54. one again

polls are fun http://www.democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results?data=CA

[Moochy]

14. A condition you must be intimately familiar with

Maybe you should show a little compassion for someone in your same position.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Well, if all 5 or 6 dozen Kucinich supporters did so...

it would mean nothing, which is just about what Kucinich's campaign means to the race in the first place.

[IndianaJones]

6. he'd poll 1 or 2 points higher. nt.

[elias7]

10. I have a hard time getting my head around Edwards

As a DK supporter, I like the no bullshit rhetoric, but Edwards flips on my bullshit meter, though I'm not sure why. I would through my weight behind Biden before Edwards.

Also, as a health care professional, I have a knee jerk (perhaps unfair) mistrust of Edwards because of his career in the 90's as a big stakes malpractice attorney. I have read a few cases on his site and they are not without merit, but the malpractice premiums I have to pay, as well as the cover-your-ass medical/legal approach now espoused in training is a direct result of the huge rise in malpractice cases and exponential rise in awards for a successful suit.

[bpeale]

22. perhaps you should put your anger

about malpractice insurance where it truly belongs. your costs are higher not because of huge payouts, but because of incompetent doctors/nurses that should no longer be in the profession. high payouts are justified when the costs of taking care of someone for LIFE are factored in.

[elias7]

36. it's not anger on my part, and it's not incompetence either

I don't know where you picked up a sense of anger from me, perhaps you have some issue with the medical profession.

You seem to have a very black and white view of malpractice, which I can tell you personally is not the case. My costs are indeed higher because of the increase in suits and the increase in payoff-- that is a fact. It is not because of an increase in incompetence. OB's and Neurosurgeons and others are leaving the profession not because of their incompetence, but because of the high liability.

There is the positive trend as a result towards maintaining a "standard of care" where it had not previously been defined. And yet, still, mistakes happen, as we are not perfect.

Like I said, the 2 cases I read did not seem without merit in Edwards' case, but he still makes me a little wary of his intent when he and others made millions and millions from these suits.

It is a problem for me that John Edwards made more money in one case than I will make in my entire career.

[penguin7]

41. It seems to me that malpractice suits hurt quality

It seems to me that lawsuits also make it harder to practice good quality control. It seems to me that quality control requires a certain amount of openness. Malpractice suits force secrecy.

I am interested in your thoughts here.

[elias7]

42. My opinion is that it makes quality control easier, but gives me less discretion

The medical record is an open book and with the rise of malpractice suits, there has been a rise in algorithms and protocols in an attempt to ensure that the standard of care is met. There are quality assurance boards that review every case with a poor outcome, and review documentation (yes, you can be sued if you did the right thing but it wasn't documented) for every single chart. There is no secrecy, we are not the type of people who feel that we can live with lying about not doing right by a person. Nor can it be hidden. We feel pressure that every case we see might be the one that exposes us getting sued. I will order certain tests that my experience tells me I don't need because if I don't have a pertinent negative result or an expected positive result, I am vulnerable to a suit. Defensive medicine is the rule, and though I cannot stand being forced to make certain decisions based on a medical/legal concern, I do it.

One anecdote: my good friend is in primary care and is named in a suit that covers all doctors, all nurses, and all departments involved in a wrongful death suit. He is as gentle hearted a person as I know, an excellent clinician, and as far as I can tell, was not responsible for malpractice in this case. Yet, he has been plagued with guilt and questionings of his own judgement and abililties over the year and a half it took for his affadavit to be obtained, and now faces the another 1 to 1 1/2 years of worry while the case is being decided. It is felt that there is unlikely to be a guilty verdict, as no one he has talked to-- lawyers and doctors--feels there is a strong case for malpractice. But he lives with this day in and day out, his malpractice rates will rise because he is being sued, and he is talking about quitting, despite the fact that he is one of the finest physicians I know, a real sensitive soul who genuinely cares for people.

It gets my goat when someone can casually state that malpractice is about incompetent doctors and nurses, which indicates to me that that person has no idea what they are talking about.

[JDPriestly]

48. Not all, but much of the malpractice insurance is about

patients' fears of having a pre-existing condition due to an error in care that prevents them from getting affordable healthcare and also fears of the costs of unknown potential future medical costs. Other damages are related to the actual costs and future costs of medical care and also loss of wages due to medical malpractice. Better social programs all the way round will help ease the medical malpractice pressure on the medical profession.

[surfermaw]

32. In the general election you would be wasting your time

Several years ago, Biden tried to get in and was brought down about plagiarism or something like that quickly..HOWEVER he would be a good VP, or some other official for an Edwards Administration.

[JDPriestly]

47. The big item in malpractice awards is future medical costs.

If you introduce universal health insurance, you don't have to worry about the uncertainty of future medicals. Many people who now sue because they fear having to face endless medical bills due to some error in medical care would not be motivated to sue their doctors. Universal medical insurance will hurt the plaintiff's bar, but help medical professionals in that respect. Caps on awards in medical malpractice cases will make a whole lot more sense (we have them here in California) and limitations on medical malpractice claims (conditions, although not adequate, must be met in California) would be much more acceptable if we had universal health insurance. I believe Edwards' plan for universal healthcare access is the most likely to pass through Congress and will work. So, Edwards is a good candidate for medical professionals.

[laureloak]

12. DK doesn't stand a chance. Put the goods behind Edwards.

Splitting the vote pretty much assures victory for HC.

[rjones2818]

18. I say that Edwards supporters should throw their support

behind Kucinich.

:evilgrin:

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!

[MuseRider]

23. Yeah, how about that?

No freaking way will I ever change my primary vote. None of the rest of them come even remotely close to what I am looking for.

[bpeale]

24. any dem EXCEPT for hillary

[Zorra]

27. Ummm, yep...that would work for me.

;-)

[asdjrocky]

26. I agree!

I could not agree more. They are both fine people. (I'm an JE supporter by the way. And this is the first time I've written anything here!)

[Zorra]

29. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[bigwillq]

33. Hello!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[zulchzulu]

28. So Kucinich would rather help out a co-sponsor of the IWR over someone who was against the war?

Oh, I get it now...

:crazy:

[JDPriestly]

49. Kucinich and Edwards could discuss Edwards' IWR vote.

They might come to terms. I think it is too early for Kucinich to decide not to run. He may make a decision later, but he adds a lot to the campaign even if he can't win. I am a strong Edwards supporter, but Kucinich is asking good questions. Without him, I fear that right-wing candidates would go a lot further to the right -- in both parties.

[Capn Sunshine]

30. Happened in'04 Iowa Caucuses

Despite the best entreaties of the Dean delegates, the Kooch delegates went over to Edwards, providing his strong surprise finish and leading to his ultimate nomination as VP

[Exultant Democracy]

39. That is what I was going to say, been done before.

[Adelante]

46. Yeah, but, Kucinich asked them to do it

I don't know if that will happen again.

[MGKrebs]

31. Almost worked last time.

Sabotaged the front runner. Except we ended up with the least progressive candidate anyway.

[bigwillq]

34. I'm still voting for DK in the primary!

He is the best candidate on the DEM side, imo.

[ChiciB1]

35. I've Already Decided That If Possible... I Will Write His Name In!!

I simply can't support Clinton! I wish I could find it in myself to do it, but I just think there's MORE going on BEHIND the scenes that what we are seeing, and I don't feel I would like it if I saw it!

No more Bushs, No More Clintons! FWIW, I find this merry-go-round of two families running America over and over seems a bit MONOPOLISTIC!

[Stop Cornyn]

37. My primary isn't until March. If the nomination appears to be settled, I'll vote Kucinich (to remind

the Democratic Party that there is a viable constituency to the left of our current front-runners) but if Edwards or Obama have a chance of winning the nomination over a less progressive alternative, I'll vote for the most progressive candidate with a shot at winning the nomination.

[lame54]

38. Why can't Edwards supporters back Kucinich

He makes the most sense
and is doing the most
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwvSwOP7Ow

[peace13]

59. A much better plan!

Now you are talking. Peace, Kim

[DangerDave921]

40. LOL

Then Edwards would have five more supporters!!

[RiverStone]

43. Agree - JE is my 3rd choice...(as Kucininch supporter)

#1 Al
#2 Dennis

John has the BEST chance to catch Hillary and win nationally, IMO. John also parallels Al Gore's positions on Global Warming - just maybe, Al will endorse John before the primaries???

Dennis deserves to be President and his actions today exemplify why - too bad much of the M$M laughs him off.

[GreenArrow]

44. no thanks.

.

[Tejanocrat]

45. If Dennis can't win at least some of his policies might because Edwards' policies owe much to Dennis

[ecstatic]

50. Kucinich and Edwards only have one thing in common

well... make that two.

[smalll]

51. Grief Process Diagnosis:

You are currently in:

Stage 3: Bargaining.

Prognosis is generally favorable for the patient, as patient has progressed midway through the Grief Process. Patient has realized that his/her candidate won't beat Madame Inevitable, and has clearly progressed beyond simple Denial or Anger as evidenced by the serious mental effort expended in search of a likely and electable "savior" (viz., Biden) and by demonstration of sincere willingness to switch candidates (if only everyone else will.) Patient has a likely chance of reaching Acceptance on or around Super-Duper-Hyper-Spectacular Tuesday (February 5th.) Caution is needed, however, as Stage 4: Depression may descend at any moment; to prepare, patient should avoid all alcohol and recreational drugs (or at least cut back a little.)

[LWolf]

52. Dennis Kucinich has earned my support,

and he's got it as long as he needs it.

[mtnsnake]

55. I'd much rather see everyone throw their support behind Kucinich than Edwards any day of the week

and twice on Sunday of course.

[ShortnFiery]

57. Whoever goes first on the ticket, Edwards and Obama MUST join forces, otherwise, IMO, all is lost

to The Clintonian DLCers. :shrug:

[Clark2008]

60. Better idea: what if Edwards supporters threw their support behind

Kucinich.

Kucinich has, at least, proven he'll introduce bills that will help the working poor and middle class. Edwards never did anything until he found it politically expedient.