Kucinich and the Democratic primaries

[burythehatchet]

The primaries are gut-check time. The primaries are the time when you get to vote your conscience. It is in a primary ballot that you don't NEED to vote for someone, you GET to vote for someone.

People will always claim that Kucinich's candidacy is a non-starter. They might be right. But in the primaries you don't have top vote for someone to get them elected president.

In primaries your vote is rarely wasted. Even if you voted for someone who didn't get the nom, you still belong to a group of delegates. Delegates who can then negotiate incorporating their views in the platform.

So if you want to see Peace, economic fairness, and all of the other positions on which you agree with DK. Make you vote meaningful. Sure, he won't win, so we don't have to worry about the GE.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

1. I am voting for Kucinich in the primaries...

I just put my Kucinich '08 bumper sticker on my car. :)

[a kennedy]

17. I'm dusting off my KUCINICH 04 hat and blocking the 04 off.

:patriot:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. Yes, this is the ONE time in the whole political process that you the

individual citizen get to express your real opinion.

If you really, truly believe in the bottom of your heart that one of the media darlings is the person who can clean up the mess left by the Republicanites, stand up to the military-industrial complex, and end this war rather than expanding it or making new enemies, then by all means, vote for that person.

But if you're thinking of voting for one of the media-anointed "top tier" candidates just because you think other people will like them, then you're throwing away your ONE opportunity to send a message to the Democratic Party about its future direction.

[MissWaverly]

9. AIPAC does NOT have my vote

I am not in favor of billions for the M.E. and those candidates that are big AIPAC darlings WILL not get my vote.

[leftchick]

19. um, theay all are

except Kucinich and Gravel.

[MissWaverly]

20. you guessed the one I am voting for Dennis Kucinich

I am sick of this, more money for military and military aid to our allies than for the American people. Nobody spends the money on defense that we do, not even Russia.

[Stardust]

3. DK definitely has my vote. Call me superstitious, but I believe

that persistently (not you personally BTH) declaring that Kucinich won't win, can't win, etc. is defeatist. Dennis deserves better, IMHO.

[datadiva]

4. He's had me from day one n/t

[burythehatchet]

5. .

[lovuian]

6. me too

:woohoo:

[eleny]

7. Recommended

[burythehatchet]

8. well thank you kindly n/t

[dweller]

10. Voted for him twice

third times a charm.

:kick:


dp

[eridani]

11. $5000 Or Best Offer

That's a typical newspaper ad that you'd place to sell a used car if you thought that $5000 was the most you could probably get for it, but would be willing to take $3000. What you would most definitely NOT do is to write the ad with $3000 in your subject line. My $5000 presidential candidate is Dennis Kucinich, because he

1. Sees the need to quit wasting all our resources on the imperial conquest of a diminishing resource, and put that money into education, rebuilding infrastructure and inventing the next economy.

2. Knows that the only way to stop the madness in Iraq is to stop funding it, really intends to have no permanent military presence there, and also intends to pay for the destruction we caused.

3. Supports investigation of government malfeasance, including about $1 trillion a year in unaccounted-for Pentagon spending, and refocusing our armed forces on threats that we face in the real world instead of the imaginations of those who have nothing to sell but fear itself.

4. Stands for universal health care; everybody in, nobody out, no exceptions.

5. Understands that the deindustrialization of our economy and deskilling of our work force is one of the most serious security threats we face, and is foursquare for fair trade and against outsourcing, and wants to repeal Taft-Hartley.

6. Wants to reform or get rid of the PATRIOT Act and restore our Bill of Rights.

7. Is unequivocally against the War on Some Drugs, in favor of medical marijuana, and for defunding the prison-industrial complex.

8. Favors paper ballots for presidential contests, and full election transparency for other tabulation methods.

9. Favors full equality for everybody, including marriage equality for LGBT people, and knows that full equality for women means control of our reproductive lives.

10. Opposes further concentration of the media and favors the fairness doctrine, stands for net neutrality, and favors an open source approach to intellectual property.

---and has lots of other excellent proposals. (I left out increasing the minimum wage and preserving social security, because there is already really solid Dem unity on those issues.)

Even more importantly, he is willing to stand up in public and ask for these things specifically and by name. No waffling, no triangulation, no substitution of feel-good rhetoric for concrete proposals. In the primaries, I'm supporting the candidate who stands for what I actually want, and more importantly, where I want our party and our country to be going. If we refuse to ask for it on the grounds that doing so will scare people with money who will then blow huge wads of it to make what is plain common sense seem marginal and foolish, how in bleeding hell are we ever supposed to get it? Republicans have been repeating "Social Security is in trouble and needs to be privatized" so long that way too many people still believe it. Whenthehell are a critical mass of Dems with national stature going to start doing the same repetition in service of real universal health care? Or keep repeating that repealing Taft-Hartley might give labor unions another chance to regenerate a middle class in this country? Kucinich on a national stage will push them that way at least.

If my $5000 guy can't go the distance, there are quite a few very worthy "or best offers" out there. Even the few who fall into the hold your nose as you vote category are still vastly better than anyone the Republicans have to offer. In the general election, I'll support whoever we get, confident that if it isn't Kucinich, that candidate will have been made better at both campaigning and governing than if Kucinich had not run. And that we will have made some progress toward building a more participatory political culture in which real flesh persons have more of a fighting chance against immortal sociopathic persons that exist only as legal structures.

Caucus state Democrats have the advantage of choosing our delegates through the caucus system, so we have the luxury of leaving the beauty contest stuff to other states. Let's choose our delegates based on the direction we want our party and our country to go, not on a guessing game about what hypothetical candidate other people might want to vote for. That will get settled one way or another regardless of what we do.

[TahitiNut]

12. It's be nice if he won the nomination.

It'd save me the trouble of writing in his name in the general election. :evilgrin:

[bobthedrummer]

13. I've done it before and, assuming elections are held, will do it again. eom

[derby378]

14. If enough people really want to vote for Kucinich, he'll be unstoppable

Politics, in a very real sense, is a consensual hallucination - but only to the effect that the people are willing to take an active role in it instead of letting someone else tell them who to vote for.

[LWolf]

15. Exactly. Those are excellent reasons for voting Kucinich,

and that is exactly what I will do.

One of the constantly repeated "advice" from those who are concerned about "electability," is:

"If you don't like the direction the party is heading, get out and change it."

That's exactly what a vote for DK is intended to do.

Yes, I'd be more than thrilled if DK got the nomination. Yes, I know what a long-shot that is.

If voting for him in the primary is the only way I can express my support for his platform, that's exactly what I'm going to do.

It's not as if I haven't made the phone calls, written the letters, to try to get my reps in Washington to listen. I have, and they don't. If my vote is the only bullhorn I've got, I'm damned well going to use it.

In my dreams, a democratic party would be full of non-corporate, non-dlc, non media-picked candidates, all of whom would be offering some great version of dk's platform. Then I'd be in agony, not knowing how to pick between them.

In my dreams. In reality, DK's platform is a light year ahead of the rest; there is no contest on the issues at all. So, "electable" or not, he's got a lock on my vote. When I cast my vote, I'm voting for the platform I want to see every Democrat working from.

[burythehatchet]

18. here's to hoping that many others do the same.

:toast:

[mirrera]

16. Absolutely! Primary vote your issues, election... team sports. N/T

[Yael]

21. But what about strategy?

*puts on flame proof suit*

If enough people pull for DK (and I like him a LOT too!) doesn't that strip away votes from GE-electable candidates that could cost them the nomination?

[JudyM]

22. I like him best, too, but what you said is my own gut-check. n/t

[LWolf]

23. Ok, here ya go!

It looks like you are ready for whatever I might throw.



If your strategy is to nominate a bad candidate because you deem them "electable," then I say that that's a pretty piss-poor strategy, lol. Better check the water pressure in that hose.

The strategy should be focused on how to get the best platform, and how to get the best candidate and his message to the general public. Voting for a candidate with, frankly, BAD positions, which is where most of the currently supposed "electable" are, gets a bad platform. A strategy based on ranking candidates by supposed "electability" is self-defeating. It guarantees only that the platform and the elected democrats will continue to move further from the people.

Strategy should focus on how to counter bullshit propaganda that makes voters view the best candidates as "unelectable." Strategy should focus on making the best "electable," rather than eliminating the best in favor of the lesser of two evils.

[Yael]

24. You assume that my candidate is my second choice

While in theory I like HR676, I think Edwards' game plan as to HOW to get UHC is much more feasible.

I like DK's stance on a lot of things, but I believe is more of a dreamer where Edwards is a realist. Edwards knows that (not if but WHEN) hs elected, he will be the President representing 300 million people, not just those on the far left. He knows that he has ~150 million to bring around to his/my way of thinking and sledgehammering isn't the way to do it.

[LWolf]

25. No,

I just responded to your question about "strategy." If you like the platform of one of the anointed "3" best, then I don't know why you'd be worried about strategy to begin with.

I thought your post was about choosing a primary candidate as a GE strategy; I didn't realize that you wanted to debate DK vs Edwards.

If that's the case I'll simply say that I prefer DK's positions and plans. Edwards' is certainly better than Clinton/Obama, but Kucinich has the advantage on issues, and he has Edwards' record beat. Kucinich gets my primary vote.