Okay, if Gore doesn't run, who would you support?

[Dawgs]

Poll question: Okay, if Gore doesn't run, who would you support?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dawgs]

4. Agree.

At least on this board, she's getting very little.

[skipos]

12. DU Dems do not represent your average Dem

so this is no surprise

[mnhtnbb]

14. Good thing Hillary isn't dependent upon DU for her money.

[Phredicles]

2. Kucininich, and beyond that I'm torn between

Obama and Edwards.

[Dawgs]

3. I love Kucinich, but does he really have a chance?

I support Obama because he's a Democrat that has a chance of winning the presidency. I'm afraid to put my efforts behind Kucinich cause I don't see him having a chance of getting more than 10% support from Democrats.

[Phredicles]

5. Which is why I'm working on my back-up choices, don't you know.

[skipos]

10. Kuc came in 6th behind Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark, and Sharpton in 2004

I don't know what would be different about 2008 to make him do much better. Clark sat out of Iowa (huge mistake) so I could see him doing better this time around.

[Beelzebud]

11. He has a chance if people vote for him. We won't get change voting status quoue.

[newburgh]

18. I love (blank), but does she/he really have a chance?

That's the way to frame it!(not) Kucinich is the only one I would support out of this group. If Gore and/or he don't make it, guess it's Nader. The biggest issue is the war machine. If we don't stop spending money on this goliath over everything else, we're all doomed. Gore won't do much to quell it, but at least his environmental stance/knowledge will help regulate it. The rest of them will do nothing about this.

[skipos]

19. Nader? Awesome!

:rofl:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

29. Missing option: Hugo Chavez

Given that this is a D.U. poll, and we're not concerned with electability, or whether they can actually legally be President, I really think Hugo Chavez needs to be on the list.

I'm pretty sure he'd get more votes around here than Biden.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Clark2008]

84. The reality is that the media determines our nominee based

on their ad nauseum coverage.

I live in a purple state and I can't see HRC or Obama flipping any of us red-on-the-verge-of-being-blue states: it's a sexism and racism thing (and it's clearly in abundance in this country, unfortunately). And, as a reality-based Democrat, myself, I can't see myself every supporting Edwards: he's too flip-floppy for me and doesn't know the first damn thing about foreign policy (a fact he's proven).

I wish Dems would stop relying on the media to tell them who is "electable," because it hasn't proven correct much in the past.

[Dawgs]

47. Hey, he got six votes!!

[InvisibleTouch]

30. Put your efforts behind him in the Primaries.

He may not realistically have a chance, but I think that's not his ultimate goal. He's in the race so his viewpoint will get heard, and to influence the "frontrunners." At least, such is my evaluation. To that end, I'd encourage his supporters to back him 100% in the primaries - with the realization that we may have to switch to the nominee thereafter, but that's okay. Yeah, I said "we." I've settled on Kucinich as my candidate, if Gore doesn't run. Right now is the time to put aside any pessimistic "gee, he can't win anyway" thoughts, and go for it wholeheartedly. After the Primaries are over, we'll re-evaluate. Until then, dare to dream!

[mvd]

51. You're on to something here

Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun definitely helped to keep the candidates honest. I'm glad to see Kucinich and Sharpton again in the race.

[NoPasaran]

86. What? I hear that a lot

"Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun definitely helped to keep the candidates honest"

But is there actually one shred of evidence to back it up?

Was John Kerry about to shoplift a candy bar once but took it to the cash register instead because of Al Sharpton's disapproving stare?

[rucky]

66. Putting efforts behind Kucinich could grow those numbers.

And think of all the other people who have the same reservation. If even some of them commit, we can see results.

[AnOhioan]

93. Support DK in the primaries

Vote principle in the primaries, Party in the general

[helderheid]

77. You speak for me.

:hi:

[tk2kewl]

6. Clark

[Flarney]

7. about Clark...

Is www.securingamerica.com the best place to learn more about him? I'd like to learn more about his positions. I love his quote that someone around here has in their sig where he proudly declares himself to be a liberal. We need more of that.

[tk2kewl]

16. that's probably a good place to start. I have learned most of what I know about Wes Clark right her

And if you've noticed, people are generally merciless in their criticism around here. Wes passes muster with most. Check the video forum, there are quite a few good Wes speeches/talks in there.

[Adelante]

68. Here's what he's doing today

http://www.stopiranwar.com/

I think he feels there is time for the primaries, but maybe not for Iran.

[Phredicles]

9. And is Clark running either?

I haven't heard anything about that.

[tk2kewl]

15. Who know?

my guess is that he will.

[Richard Steele]

40. That's actually why I'm leaning toward supporting him WHEN THE TIME COMES.

It just pisses me off that we fell into this trap so easily.

We won a HUGE, sweeping victory last November...and the
Corporate Media responded by pretending that the '08 election
was suddenly America's greatest political story.

And we went for that CRUDE DISTRACTION hook, line, and sinker.

[William Bloode]

8. Dennis K.

Not sure beyond that. I'm really praying for Al to run. Dennis K will do nicely though. Barack most likely if no Dk. Anything but Hillary PLEASE!

Nothing sgainst Hillary, i just don't want another Clinton, or Bush. I'm sick of both families.

[NoPasaran]

88. Why are people sick of the Clintons?

I can understand people being tired of the Bush Dynasty, since they resemble the Borgias without their patronage of the arts, but what have the Clintons done to have worn out their welcome?

And Hillary is only a Clinton by marriage. She's really a Rodham, after all.

[mnhtnbb]

13. Leaning towards Edwards, but open to hearing more from Obama

and am reading his book, "The Audacity of Hope".

[Czolgosz]

17. Richardson is DLC Repub-Lite to the core. He's is pro-school vouchers, pro-NAFTA/anti-Fair Trade,

pro-medical savings accounts, pro-death penalty/anti-death-penalty-appeals/pro-enhanced sentencing for nonviolent drug crimes/pro-replacing judicial discretion with mandatory jail time, pro-faith-based social services, pro-tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, and he has been a hawk on "homeland security" and military base issues.

The DLC recently honored Richardson, who gave gave the keynote address at the DLC conference. This excerpt is from the DLC website:

As governor of New Mexico, Richardson has translated his New Democrat values into an effective policy agenda. "We've shown that it's possible to pursue a progressive Democratic agenda which cuts taxes and provides economic incentives for businesses while at the same time improving education, exploding childcare availability, protecting the environment, fighting discrimination, and balancing the budget," he said.... Richardson led by example, announcing that week a slew of cuts that would save the state $21 million without adversely affecting services. Agencies have slimmed down their number of outside consulting contracts; the Corrections Department has relocated some 140 state prisoners; and the Revenue and Taxation Department has stepped up its pursuit of delinquent taxpayers.... Richardson eagerly supports business development, especially the type of businesses and institutions -- science, technology, venture capital, medicine, higher education -- that bring high wage jobs with them. Richardson says his tax cuts have been one important step toward making New Mexico more attractive to businesses. But he has also proposed dedicating over $200 million -- 2 percent of the state's permanent funds -- to invest in business startup organizations, an in-plant training fund, and new recruitment efforts.... "We should be proud to be the moderate party of sound economic management and fiscal responsibility and a friend of the economic engines -- the businesspeople of this country."

I'm all for appropriate tax cuts and promoting business, but for me that's just a means toward achieving the ends of providing a better situation for the middle class. For Richardson, promoting business is the end goal. That's fine, and if Richardson is Hillary's VP nominee, I'll be 100% behind the ticket, but during the primary where I can fight for a candidate who BEST reflects my values, Richardson is neck-and-neck with Biden and Hillary in the race to be my last choice.

[skipos]

21. I like Richardson a lot

but then again, I am not one of those DUers who gets angry when a candidate talks about cutting taxes. A "slew of cuts that would save the state $21 million without adversely affecting services" sounds good to me. He has done a lot for the NM economy, it is no wonder he is so popular there.

I don't agree with him on Nafta, but I think he is the best candidate to repair all of the damage that Bush has done to our foreign relationships. He has a genuine love of diplomacy that I don't see (as much) in other candidates.

I am also not pro-DP, but I haven't seen how our presidents stances on the DP effects anything.

I am not saying he is my first pick, btw.

[Czolgosz]

27. I also like Richardson; I just like him less than Gore, Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Dodd, and Obama.

I'm not adverse to tax cuts, but the idea that one can have "slew of cuts ... without adversely affecting services" sounds too good to be true, which it almost certainly is. Also, I'm not adverse to cutting taxes - in fact, I favor cutting taxes - I just favor cutting taxes for the over-taxed middle class instead of cutting taxes for the wealthy and for corporations. Richardson is more of a "trickle down" tax-cutter for the wealthy and for corporations.

PS - The president's views DO affect the death penalty by his judicial appointments and by his appointments to the justice department and attorney general's office.

[cool user name]

92. I did not know that about Richardson ... he *was* second on my list.

Not anymore.

[Red Zelda]

20. Kucinich?

That's like a vote for Nader.

[Czolgosz]

23. A vote for Kucinich is NOTHING "like a vote for Nader" because Kucinich is running in the Democratic

primary and will support the nominee rather than splitting the progressive vote in the general election. That's a HUGE difference.

[Red Zelda]

31. Kucinich is NOT electable

he could win both nominations and he'd be as electable as Gus Hall and Jerry Brown.
Don't waste time on him.

[EFerrari]

33. Jerry Brown has been elected to many public offices.

So, I agree with you. :)

[roody]

62. He is the new Attorney General of California.

[Czolgosz]

37. "Kucinich is NOT electable"? You should alert the Cleveland Plain Dealer!

[Red Zelda]

44. Of course he can win in northeastern Ohio....

Anyone can win there.
Except the Browns.

[Czolgosz]

53. Who meets our electability candidate pre-screen and who besides Dennis fails?

[mvd]

46. Those who say he can't win can't prove anything until..

he gets a chance. Northeastern Ohio isn't exactly bright blue, anyway.

[Marrah_G]

22. I have no idea

There is still alot of time to listen to what they all have to say, then maybe I can answer this question. I just don't know yet.

But I will say, if Gore had run he would have had every drop of my support from that minute on. He's the only one I feel that way about...so far anyway.

[sniffa]

24. kucinich or dodd

[Lone_Star_Dem]

25. I don't know

Time will tell, but at this point I'm not drawn to any other one single choice in the way Gore draws me.

[Bake]

26. Hoping for Al, but I don't see it happening - so, Edwards

I know, I know ... Gore has left the door cracked just a bit. But I'm beginning to think it is not going to happen. Dammit.

With that, I'm leaning toward Edwards at this point. I like his ideas about universal health care, I think he'll move to get us out of Iraq (he's admitted his IWR vote was a mistake, unlike HRC who tries to have it both ways). I liked him for VP in 04, and I still like him.

But if Al changes his mind, he's the one!

Bake

[Parche]

28. JOHN KERRY

[LSK]

79. is not running

[cgrindley]

32. Kucinich? You're shitting me, right?

Hands up if you want more than anything to lose the next election.

Okay, we've found the Kucinich supporters.

Seriously. Supporting Kucinich defies all logic. He can't be elected. Absolutely any Republican would beat him near to death. And a Guiliani vs Kucinich election would be like god damn Dukakis vs Bush and result in at least 40 states for the Repukes.

[PreacherCasey]

35. No, I'm not shitting you, and I support candidates who won't shit on me.

Go ahead with your bullshit.

[Individualist]

36. Hear, hear!

:applause:

The "not electable" meme is so overused and worn out.

[cgrindley]

64. Read the polls

He is unelectable. He could not win. It's not going to happen. Not ever.

It's Hilary vs Guiliani.

Mark my words. DU hates Hilary, Freep hates Guiliani. Therefore, the election is pretty much carved in stone.

[Clark2008]

90. So, what you're saying, then, is that Guiliani is the next president.

I can't see Hillary doing much in any red/purple states. Hell, she may even lose us a couple of blue states.

[cgrindley]

95. The polls don't provide VP magic

Clinton/Obama would beat Guiliani/rightwing nutjob.

If we don't get Clinton/Obama, then we're looking at President Guiliani. His choice for VP is of vital interest to us. We should either a) hope he picks a Cheney-level hobgoblin, or, b) hope he picks another Rockefeller Republican who at least won't plunge us into world war XVIII.

[Greyhound]

57. I suppose you have some facts to base this on, I'm sure we'd all love to read them.

Of course you overlook the fact that the progressive, or liberal, loonies, have always been proven right.

[cgrindley]

63. Oh dear, try to come back to reality

He doesn't even register on the radar:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

He conclusively lost in the last presidential primaries.

A vote for Kucinich might as well be a vote for Nader. He's got probably about the same chance of winning. Jesus, I'd like to bet Kucinich couldn't beat Cheney, and Cheney actually is the antichrist.

[Greyhound]

65. The reality is that this is not a team sport, or bi-annual spectacle,

produced for your distraction...

Wait a minute, never mind. You may go back to chewing your cud now.:eyes:

Oh, and thanks for that in-depth, factual analysis.

[Adelante]

69. Don't be so disrespectful

If possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Sorry, as soon as you said "Guiliani" you completely lost all credibility on political issues

Guiliani is NOT going to be the GOP nominee. I guess you haven't been paying attention to who actually runs the Republican Party.

Given your obvious lack of grasp of current events, you'll forgive me if I ignore any other pontifications you make about who "can" or "can't" win anything. :eyes:

[cgrindley]

76. You wait

I will expect an apology after the primaries are over. It will be Clinton vs Guiliani.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Mmmm Hmmm.

If that's what it ends up being, I will gladly apologize. And eat my hat.

Right now I'd give maybe 50-50 odds on Clinton being the nominee (she's far from a shoo-in) but I'd give Rudy maybe 30-to-1 odds against. What are all these all-powerful (at least, we keep HEARING that they're all powerful) Christian Nutjob "Values Voters" going to do when faced with two pro-choice candidates? Or two that aren't against gay rights?

I guess maybe these anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-separation of church and state heartland voters really aren't as legion as some would have us believe, huh?

Actually, they're not- the Terri Schiavo miscalculations on the part of the GOP point that up. But they DO control the Republican primary process. YOU wait.

And what do I get when you're wrong?

[cgrindley]

94. I guess I could eat *your* hat

although I'm not planning on being wrong. The extreme right wing will put their support behind Romney and the average Republican will go for Guiliani. Even voters who are basically quite conservative will not be able to pull the lever for Romney when it comes right down to it, and they'll see that name recognition and going for the center is going to be the only way to regain control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency. They'll want to ride in with Guiliani on a "I'm not a Neo-Con" sweep.

Democrats, if we're lucky, will also have learned that candidates need some personality. Kerry/Edwards was wretched, Gore/LIEberman was wretched. This time, star power will win out. I really do predict Clinton/Obama. It's a sure fire ticket.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Here are the big places where your analysis is wrong:

First off, Clinton/Obama isn't "star power". The assumption that Hillary is somehow guaranteed the Democratic Nomination assumes several things;

one: that she's got her husband's political chops.
two: that the tired-ass DLC "triangulation" logic that worked in 1992 will work in 2008.
and three: really, the big one- that the MAJOR POLITICAL AND MORAL ISSUE OF OUR DAY, namely, the Iraq war, doesn't really "matter", much less register on the radar screen.

See, it wasn't a lack of "personality" that doomed the Kerry ticket in 2004 so much as it was the inability to string together a morally cogent alternative on Iraq- certainly not with the albatross of the IWR vote to answer for. Sorry, we can't run anyone else who voted for that turd. Pure, plain and simple.

As for Gore's "wretched" run in 2000, I would remind you that he WON that election. So notwithstanding the problems I did see with the way that campaign was run, bagging on the "failure" of Gore in 2000 is a little excessive.

Hillary is going to have real problems winning the Dem nomination because of WHO the primary voters are- mark my words. And Guiliani isn't getting within a light-year of the nomination because of WHO the Republican Base IS. And Who Rudy is, and is not.

Speaking of which- "Not a Neo-Con"? Are you kidding me? Rudy's Neo-Con Credentials are the ONLY thing keeping him in the GOP!

I dunno, man, I think you need to pay a little closer attention. But I've bookmarked the previous post, and I've got a good memory. We shall see. If I had to guess, if the Republican nomination doesn't go to McCain it'll go to some excessively pious, Jesus-drunk anti-choice gasbag like Brownback. THAT is who runs the Republican Party, friend.

Watch and Learn. :hi:

[mvd]

34. My order

1. Kucinich (I'm closest to him on the issues, and he deserves a shot, even though he won't get one)

2. Obama (He was more fiery than before when talking about our causes)

3. Edwards (Progressive agenda; concerns about his likability though)

4. Clark (I know he has potential)

5. Bill Richardson (He'd help us with the interior west)

6. Hillary Clinton (Good campaigner, but with the importance of this election, she would be a big risk)

7. Al Sharpton

8. Joe Biden

9. Ralph Nader

[roody]

38. Will vote for Kucinich in the general.

When Kerry conceded so quickly, I said, "That's it. I am no longer flip-flopping my registration between Green and Democrat." I am no longer registered Demo, but I will send $ to Kucinich and will vote in general election for a Dem if he or she did not vote for IWR.

[AtomicKitten]

39. suggestion

How about a poll that lists candidates that are actually running and not wish list candidates?
I'd be curious to see how that turns out.

[Dawgs]

48. suggestion

How about you create that poll and found out?

[PhilipShore]

41. General Clark and if Clark does not run Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Kucinich

[derby378]

42. We need a pro-gun Democratic President - so if not Gore, it'll probably be Richardson

Then again, I'm not as single-issue as some of my fellow DUers might think. If Obama impresses me, I can be sweet-talked.

[mvd]

43. I'm for some more gun controls than we currently have..

at the federal level, but yes, guns shouldn't be the main focus of this campaign. I'm anti-gun, but know that it's not a winning issue.

[Greyhound]

45. How many times, and for how many years, does the man have to say he is not running?

Also, in case you've forgotten or never known, he supports globalism in a big way. Without Al Gore we would not be subjected to GATT or NAFTA. I love what he is doing to bring the environmental issue(s) into the public forum, but he is a corporatist to the core.

[Dawgs]

49. Because if I said 'since he's not running' or left him out of the poll..

half of the responses would have been Al Gore or posts yelling at me for saying he's not running. I wanted to avoid both. It worked, and the only major complaint was yours.

[Greyhound]

56. Ah I see. I suppose it is easier to cater to the deluded than to point out

their delusions. I just have to wonder what must he think of these "followers"? The insistence must be very flattering, but the refusal to actually hear what he says must be worrisome.

[MethuenProgressive]

59. Why not say something positive about your guy...

... and not spend so much energy bashing other DUers?

[Greyhound]

60. He has said, repeatedly, and for years now, that he has no interest in going back into

politics. How is that bashing other DUers? Isn't their time and energy better spent working, or simply advocating, someone that actually wants the job?

[Ignacio Upton]

50. Clark or Obama

n/t.

[A Brand New World]

52. Gore is my 1st choice, Clark my 2nd choice. Gore/Clark my

dream team!!!

[Selatius]

54. Without Gore, Wesley Clark hands down. That's where I'm tossing my vote in the primaries.

We need a COMPETENT commander-in-chief. If Clark isn't running, Kucinich gets my vote.

[Adelante]

70. Stop war in Iran

http://www.stopiranwar.com/

Please sign.

[dysfunctional press]

55. it's WAY too early to tell...ask me again in a year...and a half.

nt.

[MethuenProgressive]

58. Clark/Obama '08!

:patriot:

[ProgressiveFool]

61. Tough choice between Obama and Clark

But I went with Obama - I think he has the better chance.

[Hatalles]

67. What about a Clark / Obama ticket?

I think it guarantees a Democratic president for 4 terms.

[Clark2008]

91. Obama has a better chance in the primaries because of all

the hype, but I think Clark would have a better chance in the general election. Clark may actually woo a significant number of Southern and mid-Western white males (who statistically vote more often than women and people of color, percentage-wise) in the red/purple states. That's key to any Democrat winning the election.

[sakabatou]

71. Toss up between Clark and Obama

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Ralph Nader isn't a Democrat. Not sure why he's included- why not put McCain or Romney up, too?

After all, like Nader, I'm sure they've put far right Republicans in high places in their various recent campaigns, too.

[FyurFly]

73. Jim Webb n/t

[Larkspur]

74. Stephan Colbert for President!!!

He could do to the Republicans what Bill Clinton did for the Democrats. Bill Clinton used populist-progressive rhetoric to win the Dem nomination in 1992 and the White House, and after getting into the White House, Clinton tilted towards a pro-corporate agenda. Colbert could hypnotize Republicans with right wing rhetoric and after getting into the White House institute a progressive agenda.

[LSK]

78. Edwards

[robcon]

80. Hillary Clinton.

Clearly the the best leader among the candidates.

[B Calm]

82. What's with Nader as a choice? Why not add Lieberman too?

[NoPasaran]

83. Where's Vilsack?

He's the Unbama!

[cool user name]

85. Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, John Edwards.

In that order.

(Assuming Gore and Feingold don't run)

(Yes, I'm aware that Feingold has said he wouldn't run)

[NewJeffCT]

87. None of the above

I'll support the person that wins the nomination. I do not envision supporting anybody before that.

[cascadiance]

89. Bernie Sanders!

[Geek_Girl]

96. I'm not sure

nt

[tammywammy]

97. Obama

Obama/Clark would look really nice. :)