Please explain how Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders will outperform Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich

[PBass]

Democrats had solid liberals actually run for president in 2004 and 2008. Neither candidate performed well during the primaries. That was only a few years ago, when we could already see the terrible effects of the Bush administration policies, and Democrats were desperate to change the course of the country. It was an even darker period, with even more of a public desire for big changes than what we have right now.

So please explain to me how Bernie Sanders will outperform Howard Dean, or how Elizabeth Warren will outperform Dennis Kucinich. Don't just pontificate, please show your work . I fear that the progressive wing of the party will put wishful thinking ahead of pragmatism, and liberals will have our own disastrous "Barry Goldwater" event, leading the Democratic party into the wilderness for the next 20 years. I don't care how progressive your platform is, it's utterly worthless if you get your ass kicked on election day.

Also, while I do think Democrats need to have a real primary, I don't believe that outflanking a moderate candidate on the left will result in forcing moderate candidates like Hillary Clinton further leftward. In fact, it might be just the opposite. Moderates can paint themselves as sensible and pragmatic in comparison. "Look how reasonable I am, compared to the liberal!" Remember that neither party can win by simply rallying the base... we need to get the independent voters too. If you disagree, please tell me how Kucinich or Dean permanently changed the conversation with their failed platforms. (Maybe they did - I defer to sharper minds).

I also worry that Warren will merely tarnish her own future national prospects, by losing in a primary she wasn't quite positioned and ready for.

As far as Bernie Sanders goes, I admire him and his politics, and I truly value his work in the Senate, but if you think a Socialist candidate can win the general election in 2016, I believe you are delusional.

[djean111]

1. Hillary's campaign rhetoric is the ONLY thing that could be forced leftward.

It would be extremely foolish to believe her campaign rhetoric.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Which is why I vote for/against policies and principles rather than party or politician.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. +1. me too.

[beachbum bob]

87. this is why similar people let bush win in 2000

Nader supporters could care less if George Bush got elected and to me, they were more responsible for bush than the people who actually voted for him


the blood of iraq and the destruction of our economy can be place on those nader's voters more than any other ones

idealistic malcontents who rather see our country savagely destroyed than to "compromise their principles"


hogwash

[liberal_at_heart]

88. thank you for the laugh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. I'm not an idealist.

I'm a cynic.

[wyldwolf]

3. they talk louder and point their fingers more?

Actually, Warren would be a good candidate. Sanders? Exactly as you said.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. I don't care if you think I'm delusional or not. The fact is the crazy conservatives have used

the word socialist as a boogyman to scare people, and it has not worked. The more socialists come forward and the more people see socialists are not what Republicans say they are, the more normalized socialism will become. Go ahead and call me names and belittle me all you want. I eat it up. I don't care. I will vote for someone I believe will fight for economic justice.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. After the Dean scream, no candidate is going to scream on camera.

Neither Warren nor Sanders is going to make that mistake.

What really keeps Warren from doing well as a candidate is that she doesn't want to run for President in 2016. I prefer to elect a Democratic majority to the Senate so she has the power to do some good since she likes the job she has. (If she ran, I think she will do as well as Hillary Clinton against Republicans.)

Sanders is a great Senator but his association with socialism will make him the weakest candidate in the General election. We have a century and a half of propaganda against Socialism. Most people at DU are not bothered by socialism, but independents, centrists and the right do not like them.

That said, I will vote for Bernie in the primary if he runs. I want his ideas to be included in the general.

[PBass]

9. I don't see how Bernie's ideas carry over to the general election, if he loses the primaries (n.t.)

[liberal_at_heart]

11. The wealth gap is as bad as it's been in a century and you don't think an economic

populist agenda would carry?

[PBass]

52. The wealth gap is only incrementally worse now than it was in 2008.

I don't see that we have hit a tipping point yet. I could be wrong.

[liberal_at_heart]

54. I'm not talking just about 2008. Both Republicans and Democrats have been slowly destroying

our economy for decades. Democrats bought into the whole trickle down theory and supported trickle down economics ever since. The middle class is almost non existent. Pretty soon there won't be a middle class for campaign managers to create cut little campaign chants and signs for. I will not vote for candidates that won't fight for economic justice.

[PBass]

59. The economy doesn't work for many people,

but it's still working well enough for plenty of others.

For example, the stock market is booming... and it's not just Republicans who invest in stocks. So you can be sure that plenty of Democrats are thriving in this economy.

Like I said, I don't believe we have hit an economic tipping point that would make a Sanders or Warren surpass the results of a Kucinich or Dean.

[liberal_at_heart]

66. The average American has less than $100,000 in retirement.

The only ones thriving are the ones that are already rich.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. If he wins enough delegates, he can help write the Democratic policy planks.

If his ideas resonate, then his opponents will need to move left.

Far right wing republicans don't have a chance against republicans perceived as being closer to the center. But people like Jeb Bush who have actually talked about forms of amnesty and tried to engage hispanic voters need to move right and show voters he is a true red Republican American who will not allow non whites to have shit.

The same dynamic works on the left. Bernie can have a real impact in the campaign, even if he can not win.

[PBass]

45. Howard Dean didn't win any delegates,

and as far as I can remember, neither did Dennis Kucinich. I'm not aware of any of their policies becoming a plank in the platform (anything that ran counter to or beyond the campaign policies of the actual candidate).

I just don't see the runner-ups having much influence on party platforms or policy. Has anybody ever talked about a Department of Peace
like Dennis Kucinich proposed?

[Agnosticsherbet]

91. Howard Dean withdrew from the race in February 2004. He did not finish.

The media did him in with the Dean Scream coverage. Kucinich stayed in until just before the conversion. He won 23 delegates. Kucinich's reason for staying in even after the Kerry won enough delegates was to help shape the agenda. Sharpton was the only other candidate to stay in and he earned 27 delegates.

Kucinich actually did help write the platform. He wanted a quick withdrawal from Iraq to be part oft e platform. He did not get it all but he did, even with 23 delegates, affect the platform for withdrawal.

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/14/did_dennis_kucinich_sell_out_anti

Edwards, who earned 534 delegates had a huge imput to the Kerry campaign and became his VP candidate. He helped write the Democratic Party Platform.

Any candidate that wins delegates will be able to affect the Party Platform. The more delegates a candidate has, the more power the candidate has in writing the platform at the Democratic Party Platform Convetion in 2016.

[cali]

7. revisionist history sucks.

and this isn't just about "outperforming". It's about vital national debate. It's about a competition of ideas.

And although I don't think Bernie can win a general election, many, many people said that about Obama: "You're delusional if you think a black man can win".

[PBass]

12. It's "not about outperforming" ???????

Elections aren't about winning?

Well alrighty then... I couldn't disagree more. What matters the most is what happens AFTER the election, when the winner takes office. All the talk in the primaries is quickly forgotten, pretty much as soon as the primaries end.

[cali]

16. I didn't say that. I was referring to the primary

but do return to your adoration of Hilly.

[PBass]

21. You called it a "competition of ideas"...

But Dean and Kucinich's ideas lost.

Competition. Please explain how Warren or Sanders will do better, enough to win the primary and general election.

(I'm assuming you guys want a Democrat to win, since this is Democratic Underground).

[J_J_]

61. this absurdly assumes the media gives each candidate a fair shot

Kucinich, when allowed to talk at the debates, got the loudest applause for his answers.

The media said he was unelectable so everyone believed them.

The same media that lied about the wars, are still allowed to control our elections.

All of the money in our elections go to corporate media.

Corporate media called the election for Bush.

Corporate media told everyone the votes had been counted "over and over and over again" and we should just shut up and let Bush steal it.

Corporate media decided to stop doing exit polls when in 2004, exit polls showed exact opposite of election results.

Until the American peoeple decide to ignore the corporate media who is directly responsible for screwing up our country,

or better yet yank their license to use our public airwaves to lie...

I have no hope for Bernie or Elizabeth because I worked on the Kucinich campaign twice, been there, done that.

Even here at DU, people still follow the lead of the corporate media who has been caught lying over and over.

[wyldwolf]

82. that's a misuse of the term "revisionist history.' And that sux

The OP isn't revising history. He's comparing and contrasting long-shot candidates that some fell in love with.

[Cleita]

8. She explains things simply but well. Of course, she was a teacher.

I love both Dennis and Bernie, but they tend to lose you sometimes when making a point. I guess it's the lawyer creeping in that makes them take too long to make a point and you start drifting. I think her presence is also more striking. You turn to look when she speaks. Dennis being small, get absorbed by those around him and Bernie waves his hands so much, that's what you start looking at. Yet, I did support Dennis to the bitter end and will support Bernie as well, unless Elizabeth runs.

This is why Obama won. He looked right and could talk the talk.

[HuckleB]

10. I'm cynical, and I think they would outperform them because they're better speakers.

Plain and simple.

[PBass]

15. I'm a huge believer that looks and presentation matter,

and in my opinion, Dennis Kucinich didn't seem "presidential" (to me - other can differ).

But you can't convince me that Hillary's looks and presentation are so terrible that Warren can trump her in that department... Hillary also speaks well, looks presidential, etc. I call it a tie, for all practical purposes.

[cali]

17. bull. she's a piss poor campaigner. She's not an effective debater.

and I don't think she speaks terribly well.

[PBass]

19. I guess opinions will differ. I think Hillary's presentation is fine. (nt)

[Cosmic Kitten]

53. Is this the "presentation" to which you refer?

Pander much???

[PBass]

79. In the first segment, she's quoting someone...

The Reverend James Cleveland, a gospel singer. She probably thinks she is using his 'voice'. I think that is perfectly fine.

Also, Hillary spent quite a bit of time in Arkansas, so if she slips into a Southern accent when she's in the South, it's completely understandable - the same way I use a Chicago accent when I'm surrounded by people from Chicago. The same way Madonna picked up a slight English accent when she lived in London.

Also, that's a fairly superficial criticism you just leveled.

[Cosmic Kitten]

89. Bwahahaha but she's not "pandering" pfft

[HuckleB]

24. I have many concerns about HC, but it still bothers that her actual problem...

..., in terms of winning the GE, is that she is a forceful female, and we still live in an age where some people don't like that.

[HuckleB]

23. In my mind, he's very presidential.

It's just that in the age of marketing perfection, too many people won't accept his style.

It's ridiculous and sad, but we can't ignore it.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. One particularly unkind Democrat of my acquaintance said

Kucinich only carried the garden gnome vote.

[Scootaloo]

13. Can you explain why you believe liberal ideas are bad, losing ideas?

While you're at it, please pontificate on which of your ideals you're willing to sacrifice or even purge entirely for a "win"?

[PBass]

18. Umm, I'm asking you to explain it ;)

Why were Kucinich and Dean's results disappointing? What makes you think Sanders and Warren will be different?

[Scootaloo]

27. I would presume because of lack of support from people who think liberal ideas are bad, losing ideas

So. Why?

[PBass]

32. Well lets look at data, and not our emotions.

According to polling, the country's voters are roughly one-third Republican, one-third Democratic, and one-third independent.

I'm not sure how accurate that assessment is, but I do believe that neither party can win without centrist voters.

To state it another way, Dean and Kucinich couldn't win for the similar reasons a Tea Party candidate will not win - their positions can't win the centrist voters.

[Scootaloo]

73. "Independent" does not mean "centrist" though, and that belief just exacerbates the problem

If independent = centrist, every election of the last thirty years would be a Democratic landslide. Obviously, that's not the case. Instead, democratic voter turnout decreases, while republican turnout remains stable. Meanwhile, support for liberal policy grows fairly steadily, and support for conservative policy wanes.

Why?

Well, the Democratic party keeps abandoning (popular) liberal policy and embracing (unpopular) conservative policy, in an effort to appeal to the (mostly nonexistant) "center." The problem is, they are imagining "unaffiliated = center" when in fact those declared independent voters are there mostly because of a belief that both parties are pretty terrible, have no principles and lots of bad ideas. The democratic efforts to woo them with centrism doesn't work - it just affirms that the democrats are unprincipled sellouts and "the parties are the same" (the independent rallying cry, as you know.) meanwhile the constant rightward swing of the democratic party alienates its liberal / progressive base, who stay home, vote third party, and otherwise don't contribute their votes to the democratic Party.

Democrats do in fact outnumber Republicans. It's close, in the range of 51%, but it's there. Our trouble is getting people moving. And the reason we have that trouble is that the party is center-right, hawkish, and neoliberal, while the majority of its voters are solidly liberal keynesian doves.

Now. As a dedicated centrist. Tell me what among hte remaining liberal positions you're willing to strip out from the party in order to "appeal to center"?

[Cosmic Kitten]

77. +1

[PBass]

78. The last two presidential elections don't support your theory

that people are abandoning the Democratic party. Democratic turnout for Obama was unprecedented, from what I remember. Regarding Congress, Republicans can only win House seats by gerrymandering. The Democratic party and it's platform are not unpopular, and they are not losing popularity. I'm not aware of statistics saying otherwise.

What positions am I willing to sacrifice from the party platform in order to win? Lets just say that I'm willing to give up "some" of the things I want, in order to get "most" of what I want. I believe that's what I'm getting from President Obama, and that's what I'd get with a President Clinton too.

[Scootaloo]

84. And the midterms?

Turnout is usually pretty good for every presidential election, because of the amount of publicity around it.

Are you going to tell me that Obama beat McCain and Romney because of how conservative obama is?

What positions am I willing to sacrifice from the party platform in order to win? Lets just say that I'm willing to give up "some" of the things I want, in order to get "most" of what I want.

be specific. What are you willing to carve off in order to "win"?

[TheBlackAdder]

14. Why question this? Just enjoy a healthy and opinionated Primary season.

The Democrats must have a primary to get the progressive message out, while energizing their base and attracting independent and swing voters. Several of the aforementioned prospects can be used as the attack dogs to undermine the Republican positions, without tarnishing the prostective frontrunners. Also, these folks could sway the discussion to make populist progressive ideas more accepted in the mainstream.

There must be a Democrat primary or the Republicans will monopolize the disussion in the media.

[PBass]

25. Agreed... we do need a good primary.

The "attack dog" angle is one thing I didn't consider.

Warren could do that role well, Bernie less so IMO. I worry that losing a primary would diminish Warren's effectiveness in the Senate, or future prospects.

I also wonder if a centrist "attack dog" might not be more effective (?)

[99Forever]

22. Since you have clearly already made up your mind...

... why would anyone waste their time and energy trying to change it?

And quite frankly, I don't give a shit that that you think I'm "delusional." I could lay out a few derogatory terms to describe you also, but that would be rude.

[PBass]

28. This is a chance for "competition of ideas" as someone stated above.

When your ideas and rationale are sound, it's easy to defend them.

[liberal_at_heart]

30. Sorry but winning at any cost is not a sound idea to me.

I do vote for ideas. Ideas such as living wages, investment in education, protecting SS, SSDI, WIC, and food stamps, cutting the defense budget, regulating banks, publicly funded elections. Clinton won't give us any of those things.

[PBass]

37. Nobody will give you some of the things you just listed

None of the candidates will run on cutting the defense budget in a meaningful way ("cuts" nowadays just mean trimming back projected increases). I believe the same regarding publicly funded campaigns.

I disagree that Clinton will not protect Social Security and the social safety net, and that she won't make meaningful investments in education.

[liberal_at_heart]

42. Well then by all means vote for Hillary. I will not be voting for her.

[99Forever]

33. Uh huh.

I'm sure that's what the OP is all about.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. Yeah, calling people delusional is just a competition of ideas.

[99Forever]

38. These tools are so transparent.

And they actually think they are slick.

[PBass]

39. No, it's a challenge that you don't want to answer ;)

[liberal_at_heart]

44. Like someone else posted I could stoop to your level and call you all kinds of names but I won't.

This is a message board. When people get off their computer they do not vote based on a name someone called them on a message board. They vote based on how political policy impacts their lives.

[PBass]

46. Fair enough. And similarly,

I will continue to believe that a Warren or Sanders candidacy will be as viable as Dennis Kucinich's was.

[liberal_at_heart]

47. go ahead and believe whatever you want. It matters not to me.

[HereSince1628]

26. AAAARRRGGGGHHH! Is not in either of their vocabularies.

over to you...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. Short answer?

History doesn't repeat. People change over time, and voters are people. I for instance, was willing to vote for a warhawk in 2008, but won't be in 2016.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. I agree with your first couple of points ...

but I don't think a Warren primary run will harm her future prospects (if she has any) ... the fact is, outside of the activist left, Warren is a relative unknown.

[Vinca]

35. How, exactly, do we "show" our work?

Notions about who could or could not win are largely gut-based. I think Hillary can win the general, but I also think Elizabeth Warren could. There is a quality about winners that is not easily defined. They either have "it" or they don't. Obama had "it." Warren also has "it." I think Warren could win both the primary and the general. I love Bernie Sanders and in a perfect world he would be the next POTUS. Unfortunately, when it comes to the "it" factor, he tends to be more like Ralph Nader who was a fair-to-middling candidate who didn't generate a ton of excitement and definitely didn't have "it."

[PBass]

40. "show your work" was kind of a joke...

Hence the wink emoticon.

I don't think Warren can beat Hillary, but I appreciate your logical-sounding post.

[Vinca]

43. Sorry . . . the joke part was lost in translation. In my brain, anyway.

[liberal_at_heart]

41. I'm done voting for who has "it" and who can win. I may be a tiny, insignificant speck of dust

and my vote may not be enough to put Sanders in office. But if I have to vote one more time for who can win I may just lose all interest in voting. No, if I'm going to continue to vote it will be for who I believe will fight for economic justice. I like Warren, but I've just heard more from Sanders on a broad range of subjects that I really like. And I sure as hell won't be voting for Hillary just because some people say she is the one who can win in the general election.

[PBass]

49. Fair enough, by all means vote for who you want in the primary.

In the general election, voting is always a vote for 'the lesser of two evils'. It probably always has been, and always will be. There are no perfect candidates because there are no perfect people.

My thread is NOT about how Warren or Sanders would not make a good president - I believe they both would. It's about whether they are viable enough to win.

If Warren is in the primary, I'll almost certainly vote for her. But realistically, I think she will do about as well as Dennis Kucinich did, though.

I'm asking for people to tell me why they think she can get the same voters that Howard Dean couldn't get.

[liberal_at_heart]

64. Well as I've said who can win does not concern me.

[KingCharlemagne]

48. Sanders is not a 'Socialist'; he is at best a 'Social Democrat' (in the

Western European sense of the term).

Socialists advocate for public ownership of the means of production. I have never heard Sanders advocate for that or anything close to it. Instead, Sanders is a Capitalist, albeit one who favors a stronger social safety net and tighter regulations on capital. But Sanders, AFAIK, believes in the private ownership of the means of production. Hence, not a 'Socialist.'

[PBass]

50. Sorry about that, sloppy thinking on my part

and you are correct.

[krawhitham]

51. Dean was assassinated by the media, and Kucinich was never anything but a joke

[liberal_at_heart]

56. joke or not at least he believes in peace which is a concept liberals have given up on. Just

like they have given up on the environment and unions. The Democratic platform is nothing like it used to be. It's all about winning now. I just can't be a part of it anymore. It no longer represents what I believe in.

[PBass]

57. Agreed, Howard Dean was kneecapped by the media.

How will Elizabeth Warren not succumb to this?

Hell, the media tries to kneecap Hillary whenever possible. But she can withstand it. I'm not sure Warren could withstand it.

[LWolf]

55. I believe that

as long as we are afraid to run our best candidates because they "can't win," we will never elect anyone worth electing. "Electability" sure as hell hasn't stopped the right wing in this country from running and electing way too many right-wing candidates, and, if you hadn't noticed, they get further and further beyond sanity every year, yet...no one questions their legitimacy as a candidate, and they get votes.

[PBass]

62. Good points, but the right wingers you refer to

are not winning national elections. A Tea Party candidate cannot win the presidency at this time. The center will not vote for Tea Party candidates. They can only win regional elections, and often they can only win because of gerrymandering.

I think the underlying question here is "should Democrats make their tent bigger or smaller (or keep it the same size)"?

IMO, making the tent smaller will result in poor election results. (I'm sorry but a Bernie Sanders candidacy would be an embodiment of this. Less so for Warren, but also true). Despite her flaws, Hillary Clinton appeals to the broadest number of voters, IMO.

[LWolf]

68. It depends on how you construct your tent.

If your tent is constructed to serve the 99%, size matters; we all want to fit in there. If it's constructed to collect votes from the 99% while serving the 1%, it's still a small tent, with voters left out in the rain.

[liberal_at_heart]

69. Well said!

[Cosmic Kitten]

58. The issues facing the voters are very different

Kucinich was proposing a "Dept of Peace"
to a nation still in a the grasps of a wargasm.
He lost a lot of votes for suggesting
a realistic but "unpopular" solution to war...
peace!

Dean shot himself in the foot
by overacting his enthusiasm.
Also, Kerry and Edwards were hawkish on war.

Hillary is a staunch war hawk
The general electorate is war fatigued today.
The issues NOW are JOBS and INCOME DISPARITY.

Warren and Sanders are addressing JOBS and INCOME.
They are also addressing that the economy is rigged.
Hillary will never concede that her donors have rigged the game.

[HereSince1628]

63. certainly the issues are more domestic than international...

I'm of the opinion that the war on women and increasing social regression on race and class are also quite important as they are components of other top 10 issues

[Cosmic Kitten]

70. Agreed. Sexism, racism, and classism is the "rigged" game

The rigging of society has everything
to do with who is disenfranchised.

[redstateblues]

72. Wasn't Warren

a registered Republican not that long ago?

[Cosmic Kitten]

76. Lots of people were? so?

This is the typical distraction
thrown out against Warren.

What do YOU make of her evolution?

[BumRushDaShow]

92. Why is it a "distraction"

Its a fact. It's amazing that Warren can "evolve" but Hillary or Obama "can't evolve" per many on DU. I am not a Hillary fan but the hypocrisy is breathtaking sometimes.

[Jefferson23]

60. How? When Americans demand it, en masse. There are still more of us than them. n/t

[PBass]

65. In other words, all we have to do to win the football game

is to score more touchdowns? How silly of me not to understand that.



Sorry about the sports analogy, everybody

[Jefferson23]

75. Attitudes like yours won't help..good luck. n/t

[woolldog]

67. None of those politicians are good candidates for President.

If we want to win.

We need Biden to step in or Hillary. We can't afford to have a republican in the white house, so Sanders, Kucinic, Warren (not enough seasoning), and Dean are OUT. Not enough mass appeal.

[hopemountain]

71. dean is pushing for elizabeth warren to run

based upon the emails i receive to sign petitions to "urge elizabeth warren" to run for president.

[wyldwolf]

80. No he's not. He publicly endorsed Clinton

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. Sanders is far too vulnerable to caricature. His politics may be spot on, but past rhetoric....

will doom his candidacy, much like Dennis Kucinich. Howard Dean is much wiser & much more pragmatic than many of his supporters care to admit. I think he's already endorsed Hillary.

[morningfog]

81. I don't think Dean or Kucinich are running, so

Warren and/or Sanders will not have to outperform them.

They would need to outperform Hillary, which is possible.

[liberal_at_heart]

83. I have never worked on a campaign before, but if Sanders runs I will be volunteering.

It's nice to be excited about a political candidate for once.

[Zorra]

85. They won't. We are only allowed to vote for the candidate Wall St selects for us.

We at least have to try to get a genuine Democrat nominated.

Personally, I'd rather go straight into mass non-violent revolution before things become even more hopeless, but i reckon it will take 8 more years of corporatists in office before enough people get fed up and the shit really hits the fan.

[liberal_at_heart]

86. The tipping point has to be close. Just how much more money can they squeeze from people

that already have so little?

[BumRushDaShow]

90. I wanted to vote for Jerry Brown and Dennis Kucinich in their primaries

but neither made it long enough to still be on the ballot in PA when we finally voted. That is the unfortunate problem with having primaries on different days through the primary season. I know that primaries are essentially "party" nomination exercises, but in most cases, very strong liberals/progressives never lasted long enough to get some big state votes.

This is the 2016 schedule so far (per this - http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-presidential-primary-calendar.html)

[realFedUp]

94. Howard and Dennis won't run.

Not the time.

[JI7]

95. Howard Dean was NOT a solid liberal , he was similar to Hillary in his views, Warren would be a far

more serious candidate than Kucinich .

i don't think she is going to run and i don't think she can beat hillary in a primary. but i think if she did win the primary she would win the general. and she would do better than Kucinich.