Kucinich lost.

[Paragon]

Oooh, I'm so naughty...:evilgrin:

[joshcryer]

1. So petty. :)

But at least you didn't start it.

[Paragon]

2. More like responding to pettiness.

:)

[cyclezealot]

3. If Kerry does not listen to Kucinich's arguments

then Kerry's victory will be a hollow one..

[izzie]

9. I think you are somewhat right.

I just did not see why Kucinich did not do better. He talks the right way.

[jsw_81]

13. Kucinich got nine percent of the vote in his home state

[AntiCoup2K4]

81. See the thread I just started

Only one way that Kerry and his bosses will listen is strength in numbers.

[joshcryer]

4. True enough. :)

;)

[WilliamPitt]

5. Only when he quits

Unlike the other quitters...

*ducking, fleeing*

:)

[twilight]

6. DK is not a quitter ...

and he hasn't quit yet that I've heard. Good for him! He got about 15% of the vote where I live; present ~5% in California!



He is not gone yet!

:dem: :kick:

[JohnKleeb]

7. he should have got more but to be honest thats far from his fault

It aint easy having the least coverage/name recongization. To be honest, though he hasnt done as well as I would like him to do, he has IMO overceded expections. Press acts as if hes invisible.

[littlejoe]

70. Speaking for myself, Kucinich deserves .respect.

He earned it!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Actually, Kucinich won

5 delegates,
Dean won 9 delegates,
Sharpton won 8 delegates,
Edwards won 233 delegates
:kick:

-- they are all winners!

[goodhue]

11. more than that

5 projected delegates from MN plus 4 projected delegates from OH makes 9 delegates yesterday

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. So he managed to do just as well as a guy who dropped out 2 weeks ago

Quite impressive.

[revcarol]

37. Freddie, how would we live without you?

You're just one lovely bundle of joy, you are.

But Dennis would be polite to you, care whether you have health insurance, and try to keep your job from going overseas. So you just keep right on being your old lovable self. Dennis cares for everyone, not just people who agree with him or are polite.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. I am just pointing out some facts

It is not my fault if those facts cause discomfort to some people.

[redqueen]

54. No, Freddie, making snide remarks is not just pointing out facts

as I'm sure you're quite aware.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Thanks for the update!

[bobthedrummer]

60. God bless Ohio and Minnesota.

We failed to deliver delegates here in Wisconsin. Got twice as many votes as Wes Clark though.

[MuseRider]

10. Thanks.

First thing I see this morning is this kind of crap. Speaks volumes about some of the people here. When Kucinich says he is out then he is out, until then I back him 100%. No one who has been able to get out their message has lost yet, that depends on Kerry.

[OhioStateProgressive]

12. No, America lost

And the sheep who made it happen are beyond contempt.

[jsw_81]

14. Why did the voters of Ohio reject Kucinich by such an overwhelming margin?

Are they all "sheep" in your view?

[OhioStateProgressive]

16. yes, they are

I see them everyday...they worry about Reality TV, they don't read books...they aren't informed...they are ill educated pedestrian idiots

[jsw_81]

19. So only Kucinich supporters are well-informed?

:eyes:

[OhioStateProgressive]

21. I guess it looks that way(nt)

[GabysPoppy]

46. Where do I turn in my library card?

Is it any wonder why Liberals get branded with that bullshit "elitest" label?

[Freddie Stubbs]

71. 52% of them managed to become informed who John Kerry is

Finishing a distant third in your home state is quite an accomplishment.

[OhioStateProgressive]

72. hehehe

They know "who" he is in the most broad sense. Mainly meaning they saw a tv ad, and a bald guy talking about him on the news.

Don't pretend that simpletons know what is best for them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. You don't seem to have a very high opinion of Democratic primary voters

[OhioStateProgressive]

74. well...

I don't respect stupid people. The world should aspire for more than mediocrity. That means the people as well.

Don't be so blind as to not recognize that *most* people are average or unintelligent.

Don't insist on society dumbing itself down to them.

Force them to be more.

[IrateCitizen]

75. For the record, I don't want this attitude to be taken...

... as being representative of the attitude of the majority of Kucinich supporters.

Speaking as a Kucitizen, I think I'd rather keep working on getting our message out through grassroots efforts (since the mainstream media sure isn't helping us) than to dismiss the vast majority of the American electorate as either "average" or "unintelligent". I think Dennis would want the same as well. Rather than "force" people to be more, I'd want to "inspire" them to be more. There's a HUGE difference between the two approaches.

Please in no way take OhioStateProgressive's attitude as representative of the majority of Kucinich supporters, because it isn't.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. I think the typical voter is not stupid, but

1) uninformed about anything that isn't in the mass media

2) afraid of change

The day after the caucus, where Dennis did 17% statewide and actually won several precincts in Minnesota, I took the bus to the Y, went through an exercise class, sat in the hot tub, took the bus back, and went to the supermarket. Wherever I went, there were two topics of conversation: how screwed up the health care system is, and the bus drivers' strike set to start tomorrow after the Republican-dominated Metro Council refused to accept even the concessions that the bus drivers offered. A few people mentioned that Kerry won Super Tuesday, but it didn't seem to be a topic of great interest.

People were really upset about both health care and the strike, but they had swallowed all the corporate propaganda about single payer health care and they had a "well, there's nothing you can do" attitude about both health care and the labor situation.

I think we're in the midst of a national mass psychological depression, and one of the hallmarks of depression is "learned helplessness." In other words, you think that things are hopeless even when they're not, and you become unable to act to better your situation. People believe that the best they can hope for is "unBush," and it's been so long since any political program actually improved the average standard of living that people no longer even try to imagine it.

Add to this the virtual media blackout of Dennis (compare the number of times he was mentioned in the media compared to any other white male candidate), and you have masses of people sighing and voting for Kerry or Edwards because they're the only candidates who got any publicity recently, and because at least they're not Bush.

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. Oh course most people are 'average'

But average does not equal unintelligent. Just because most people are not as far to the left as Kucinich does not mean that they are unintelligent.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Nice insult.

Great way to refer to fellow progressives, comparing them to barnyard animals..:eyes:

[OhioStateProgressive]

17. you know what?

The nation had a chance to elect a correct leader.

People like you helped America lose.

And the fact is, that you are NOT progressive, because you didn't support Kucinich...and ever goddamn one of you knobbers who didn't vote for Kucinich are not Progressives either.

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. A bit self-righteous there, bunky!

Excuse me, but exactly when did God himself reveal 'the truth' to YOU? God, talk about ARROGANT! :puke:

[OhioStateProgressive]

23. call me arrogant, I don't care.

The fact still remains that people who consider themselves 'Progressives', didn't elect the only Progressive in the race.

If you all wanna know why the Democratic party is about one hop away from the Republican party, you should first look in the mirror, and then find all the supporters of candidates other than Dennis...and then you will see what and who made this party the second Republican Party

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. Your fundamental premise is what's wrong

Your assumption that ONLY DK is a progressive is what's flawed, and it is arrogant in the extreme for you to assume that you alone somehow have a divine right to arbitrarily and unilaterally determine how that term is defined. Give me a cup of that self-righteousness, when you've finished wallowing in it, will you?

:eyes:

[OhioStateProgressive]

26. all those words

Kucinich is the only true Progressive...only you can't see it

Blinded by what I do not know, but the truth evades you like a minnow swimming to safety from a bass.

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. LOL!

I see quite well, thanks; it is YOU who are blind to the facts.

[ordentros]

35. Dennis would say...

EVERY politician is a progressive since each tries to make progress on some issue.

[Padraig18]

36. Yes.

He would, indeed. It is odd to me that while the Congressman himself would never arrogantly assign to himself the label of 'the only progressive in the race', some of his supporters race to do so.

:shrug:

[JohnLocke]

85. What are these people going to do come November?

40. Do you think progressive is becoming one of those terms

like "alternative rock"?

I do. Everybody wants to be progressive, it seems. But not everybody who says they are progressive really is progressive.
Just like Bush says he's conservative when he's really a radical & if Goldwater were alive he'd be attacking Bush constantly, I wager.

Got any ideas for a new term?
Maybe we can go back to using the term liberal? That might be too scary for some folk.
:evilgrin:

[redqueen]

64. Yes! n/t

[kiahzero]

28. Maybe Kucinich should sieze power?

Since this whole "democracy" thing clearly is flawed; after all, the people aren't capable of voting for the right person!

[revcarol]

31. $5.00 MORE FOR DENNIS!!

.

[kiahzero]

32. Do you subtract money for certain things,

like when a Kucinich supporter claims that democracy is broken because people don't agree with him/her?

[revcarol]

34. No, actually I agree with him.

Democracy is broken.Most voters are not well informed. The leading candidates did their best to make sure they were not informed on the issues, because they didn't come up to DK's breadth and depth of understanding the issues. They were much better served by good hair, and sound bites and media favor.

If people are self-identifying as progressives AND, if, after studying the candidates and issues they vote for a person who is close to the opposite of their progressive views , that is STUPID.

[kiahzero]

38. I didn't know you could vote for Bush in the primaries

After all, that'd be voting for someone "close to the opposite of the progressive views." On the other hand, voting for someone who is consistantly one of the most liberal members of the Senate doesn't seem like "vot for a person who is close to the opposite of their progressive views."

The leading candidates did their best to make sure they were not informed on the issues, because they didn't come up to DK's breadth and depth of understanding the issues. They were much better served by good hair, and sound bites and media favor.

Right... all those policy papers on the websites... they were just a diversion from the pictures of the good hair. And when they tried to talk policy during the debates, and were shot down by the media focus on the horse race, that was the candidates subliminally controlling the media.

By the way, I thought the presumptive nominee had bad hair? How's that fit into your theory? Not to mention his candidacy was widely regarded as DOA by the media before Iowa.

[diamondsoul]

39. That's frustration, my friend.

Long-standing, long-suffering frustration. I disagree with the second half of the claim- democracy is not broken because people disagree with Kucinich supporters, but it most assuredly IS broken.

Do you disagree with that statement without the Kucinich qualifier?

[kiahzero]

41. Something you're missing:

While I don't think Kucinich had a lot of support for his positions, I think there were at least some that were closest to Kucinich that did not vote for him. Why?

Understanding that Kucinich doesn't have a lot of popular support, they may have chosen to express a preference between 'major' candidates, choosing not to become a victim of Duverger's Law.

Work for election reform, and candidates like Kucinich will have more of a chance. So, to answer your question, I think the way we express ourselves in this democracy needs some work, but I don't think it's broken.

[diamondsoul]

61. I can respect that answer.

I'm not sure I agree, as I'm sure you can tell from the post you replied to.

Actually, I think democracy itself is broken in the USA for several reasons. Election reform is definitely the most expedient solution but I don't think it would cure all the ills that currently plague democracy in this country.

First I think unrestrained capitalism is a major factor. We have some segments of the electorate who simply do NOT have the time or energy to be informed voters due to nothing more than economic hardships. A single mom working two or three jobs to care for her family doesn't have the time or the energy to spend her off-work time (what little there is) looking up candidate positions. She relies on the media to fill her in and the media is failing miserably (to borrow from Gep).

Then again, I'm in favor of declaring voting days national holidays or in the case of Primaries, state-wide holidays. I'm also in favor of splitting Primary or Caucus dates into thirds- pretty well evenly distributed population votes by one third of the country at a time. It would make it much more difficult for the media to "call" an election because the voting could vary so widely nobody could tell what to expect. The one potential drawback is political campaign strategy would be tougher to settle as well, but then that would simply mean the people decide in spite of strategy or media coverage, and I see that as the right way to do it. Plus you could schedule the Primaries a month or more apart so the candidates have a chance to visit all voting States at least once before they vote.

Ahhh what the hll, I'm just an unrealistic idealist anyway.:toast: *LOL*

[kiahzero]

77. Yes and no

First I think unrestrained capitalism is a major factor. We have some segments of the electorate who simply do NOT have the time or energy to be informed voters due to nothing more than economic hardships. A single mom working two or three jobs to care for her family doesn't have the time or the energy to spend her off-work time (what little there is) looking up candidate positions. She relies on the media to fill her in and the media is failing miserably (to borrow from Gep).

Agreed, but that isn't a problem with democracy... that's a problem with the the media, and a secondary problem with not paying living wages. Both should be fixed, and the sooner the better.

Then again, I'm in favor of declaring voting days national holidays or in the case of Primaries, state-wide holidays.

Agreed.

I'm also in favor of splitting Primary or Caucus dates into thirds- pretty well evenly distributed population votes by one third of the country at a time. It would make it much more difficult for the media to "call" an election because the voting could vary so widely nobody could tell what to expect. The one potential drawback is political campaign strategy would be tougher to settle as well, but then that would simply mean the people decide in spite of strategy or media coverage, and I see that as the right way to do it. Plus you could schedule the Primaries a month or more apart so the candidates have a chance to visit all voting States at least once before they vote.

Definitely not agreed. The major problem with this approach is that it forces candidates to spend enormous chunks of money all at once, rather than our current system that spreads it out. The advantage of having spread out primaries is that lesser-known candidates can spend most of their money in the first two states, and if they win, get the funding to carry on through their newfound name recognition. Large numbers of primaries all at once favor insider candidates, in the same way that the nationwide general election favors insider parties.

[GreenArrow]

44. that was Plato's take

.

[LWolf]

18. America loses

when it's citizens turn their back on the candidate who:

*is the most honest.
*has the most ingegrity.
*is the most consistent in support of the people.
*offers the best hope for a nation with more honesty, integrity, and actual care for the people.

Not exactly something to celebrate. I'll celebrate when voters are paragons of honesty, integrity, and independent thought.

[revcarol]

24. You're wrong. The world loses.

The world loses a candidate who:
1) doesn't believe in pre-emptive war
2) is even-handed on I/P
3) won't depress wages in the U. S.
4) is for diplomacy, negotiation, peace and cooperation, not just using American power for disguised hegemony
5) won't further the multi-national corporate agenda

You get the picture. The world loses.

[LWolf]

33. Yes.

:hug:

[redqueen]

55. You're right, revcarol. n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. You're not naughty, just insensitive.

The initial post has all the subtlety of a thumbscrew... :eyes:

[charlie]

27. Naw, I don't think it was meant to be mean

I'm a Kucinich guy, I'm not bothered. It's just some dumbassery between him and Pitt, meant to be bookended with the Dean lost thread. Goofy late night tit for tat stuff.

[Duder]

43. We Lost

Now on to November 3rd by Sam Smith

'The winner is a supporter of three of the worst government decisions of our time: the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the Bush education law.

He is a Yale graduate and a member of a secret society of dubious values and influence. He is arrogant with the sense of self-entitlement of the fully privileged yet has done little in life to justify this self esteem. And he is a tenured and servile member of an establishment that has trashed the Constitution, badly weakened the economy, made us hated around the world, and effectively brought to the end of the First American Republic.

To be sure there will be a consolation runoff in which we get to decide who we would rather do battle against for the next four years. This choice of battleground is not an insignificant matter but neither is it what a democratic election is supposed to be about. It is more like a cancer patient choosing between surgery and chemotherapy. We don't have to wait for Katherine Harris; this election has already been fixed.

How people of democratic inclination react to this dismal fact will vary considerably. Some will go forth with the cry of "Anybody But Bush," some will stay home on election day, others will support Nader or a Green. There may even be a portion of this constituency that will argue for Kerry's virtues beyond the gossamer assumption of 'electability' but this argument - usually central to any vigorous campaign - has so far been strangely muted.

The proponents of each of these positions will become increasingly insistent as the campaign progresses. Already the Anybody But Bush crowd has attacked Ralph Nader with vituperation usually reserved for the extreme right. You can expect more of such things because the story of the American left for the past three decades has been one of subdivision, fragmentation, and splitting into smaller and weaker cells of action and opinion with, of course, no diminution of certainty in the righteousness concerning each shard of what was once a movement.

The left has become somewhat similar to the three major factions of the Episcopal church: the high and crazy, the low and lazy, and the broad and hazy. You can no more define what it means to be a Democrat than it does to be an Episcopalian. And, as with that church, it is the last group - the broad and hazy - that predominates. These are people who energize themselves only at election time or during debates over judicial nominations, just like people who only go to church on Christmas and Easter. I am certain that over the next few months I will be strenuously lectured by persons who have not been involved in any issue since they started blaming Nader for Gore's defeat in 2000. If even a fraction of their energy had been devoted over the past four years to real issues such as national health care or a fair economy, we might not only have progress but a better choice at the ballot box.'

More...

[revcarol]

50. "hand out airline barf bags with the inscription, "Vote for Kerry!!"

I just lost it.:nuke:

Some very serious ideas there, with great ideas to keep progressives from eating our own. Bernie Sanders would be great to be part of the progressive pressure group on Kerry...:think:

[Ficus]

45. am I not welcome on DU anymore

or something? Why the hatred for Dennis out there?

[mdmc]

47. Its not hatred

Kucinich and Sharpton are different from the Democratic party. The DLC fears that the progressives campaigns will fail to bring the "Nader voters" into the Kerry camp, but will rather increase Nader's support from Democrats.

Kerry is more liberal than Dean. Kerry was my third choice behind Dean and Kucinich. Kerry is our best chance of beating Bush.

Without Dean and Kucinich, all these DU'ers would be crying over a Leiberman candidacy right now. We should be thanked for giving Kerry a shot.

[Ficus]

52. I know he's liberal

or used to be, but the gloating from the original post pisses me off.

on edit: You are soooo right about your last point.

[GreenArrow]

49. "Why the hatred for Dennis out there"

Because Dennis was right about more than their candidate. Because he can't win. Because honesty, integrity, tenacity, compassion and foresight don't win elections.

[GabysPoppy]

48. The best part of Kucinich

He is a helluva lot nicer than most of his supporters.

He would be wiser to impart some of his civility to his most ardent of supporters than to the rest of the Democrats in the country.

[IrateCitizen]

51. Lemme get this straight...

Someone starts a thread for the simple purpose of ridiculing Dennis Kucinich supporters, some of them get their hackles up over it, and it proves that DK supporters lack civility???

:wtf:

Now, I won't argue that there are numerous other threads from which you could have chosen to support your hypothesis. Hell, I'm a "Kucitizen" myself and I have cringed from some of the comments made by my fellow supporters of his. But to use THIS thread as an example just seems a little off base.

I mean, it's not like the initial poster was setting a tone of negativity from the beginning or anything.... :shrug:

[GabysPoppy]

59. Thank you for proving my point

It matters not where I placed my post, just that it is accurate. One supporter suggested that if you aren't a Kucinich supporter you are not "progressive" enough to be a member of DU.

Feel free to repost my comments wherever you think it is more appropriate. Being an ardent supporter of a candidate is one thing and admirable. Being an "elitist" asshole is something else.

That goes for supporters of other candidates as well who believe the sun rises and falls on their candidate only. The purpose here is to get bush* out of the WH, not to play "holier than thou". Why that concept is so hard to grasp is beyond me.

For everyone who has declared that because (_________) didn't win the nomination that they are planning to support Nadar, I hope the door does hit your ass on the way out.
(Insert the candidate of your choice between the brackets above.)

[diamondsoul]

63. "One supporter suggested..."

Right, and of course all of the rest of his supporters are identical to that one, right? You generalized a characterization of Kucinich supporters that was wholly inaccurate.

There are extremists, literally EVERYWHERE! Does that necessarily mean the base issue position is wrong? The way you put it, there is an inherent flaw of incivility among Kucinich supporters. That's false. It's no more true of Kucinich people than the supporters of any other candidate and I resent you lumping me in with extremists.

[GabysPoppy]

65. Show me where I "lumped" you with anybody

If I did, I apologize. I was talking of the extremists and they do deserve my criticism. You will note that I did include extremist supporters of any candidate in my remarks. Why you choose to ignore that fact is beyond me.

I would only suggest you answer that question to yourself, reality is such that I really don't care one way or the other.

[OhioStateProgressive]

67. negative

I said if you don't support Kucinich you aren't a Progressive...I believe that to be the truth

I made no comments as to whether it should make one not eligible to post here.

Those are your words.

[GabysPoppy]

83. You were not the one who made that suggestion

But it would not be constructive to actually name the person on this board or in this thread.

If you wish to see it, you can PM me and I will supply the link if it is still stabding.

[IrateCitizen]

53. Yup, that's a nice spirit of unity you're expressing

You know, it's funny when a Kucinich supporter like me comes to this forum, and the first post I make of the day is a congratulations to Kerry and his supporters -- and my personal pledge that I will do what I can to help him get elected (granted, it isn't all that much) while simultaneously watching him to hold his feet to the fire once elected to further progressive reforms. I actually felt positive about things, even though my personal favorite had lost.

Then, I am confronted with this garbage. :argh:

Let me guess, Paragon -- you'll be one of those people later on in the campaign who will be telling all of the "progressives" to STFU and "fall in line". All I can say is that you're not helping your cause too much by taking time out to insult the very people whose support you later might want to have. In fact, your actions in posting this are completely bereft of humor and worthy only of contempt.

[John_H]

56. Actually, DK on himself a senate seat if he wants it. And that's good.

[GreenPartyVoter]

58. DK's ideals are still on the table

that's good enough for me.

[Ysabel]

62. scowl...

n/t...

[rucky]

66. So did the Cubs

why do you still support those losers?

[GreenPartyVoter]

68. *lol*

[no name no slogan]

69. How did he lose?

Because he didn't win a plurality anywhere?

So what? His message is still out there. And it's getting stronger every day.

Dennis Kucinich may not have won a state, but he won Minneapolis and Saint Paul. We're still in this race-- and we're going to the state convention, and then to national, to carry forward his-- make that OUR-- message.

BTW, Kerry hasn't "won" anything yet: he still needs 999 delegates to get a 1st ballot nomination.

[Paragon]

78. I'm asking the mods to lock this

If some of you had done a little homework, you might've figured out that this thread is a response to a boneheaded one posted last night by a now apologetic certain someone.

I think it's time for Dennis and Al to finally step aside, but by no means do I actually think they "lost" and/or are "losers".

Thank you.

[revcarol]

79. You could have "said "something.

Instead, you pulled all the DK haters out of the woodwork.

I GUESS WE REALLY NEED TO WORK ON OUR COMMUNICATIONS SKILLS HERE>

I think the time for them to "drop out" is at the convention, because both of them have pledged delegates, and both names will be entered into the nomination for our candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

[JohnKleeb]

80. they shouldnt drop out

Yes as it stands today, Kerry has the best chance of winning but those two have every right to stay in. BTW I agree, this does bring haters out of lot. Fire with fire :eyes: never does it for me.

[David Zephyr]

84. Come On, Paragon. Why Are You Doing This?

You are bigger than this.

[Paragon]

88. *sigh*...read post #78

[youngred]

86. thanks so much for raising the level of debate

and helping us all to rally round to beat Bush :eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. $20 for Dennis

and it's only March 3!