DU 2008 Preliminary Elimination Primary Project

[Catchawave]

Poll question: DU 2008 Preliminary Elimination Primary Project

VOTE for who you will LEAST LIKELY be supporting if the primaries were held today.

The below list are candidates I selected based on the fact that they have a SUPPORT FORUM on DU ! (listed under DU Groups) As of now, there are exactly 10, so no room for "Other". In all due fairness to those wonderful DU groups, not all on the list have declared an interest in even running, but Why Not?, I'm a huge fan of all!

If there's enough interest, the next poll will eliminate the top vote getter, and so on and so forth.

AGAIN, VOTE FOR S/HE WHO WON'T GET YOUR SUPPORT TODAY.

(listed in order of their appearance on the DU Groups Forums)

Also, Keep in mind, the "loser" may also be considered the biggest threat to some more popular candidate supporters, which can be also be considered an early predictor :) Have fun :dem:

Edit: Poll closes Midnight(EST) Sunday 8/7. Please help kickit :)

[SteppingRazor]

1. Kinda disingenuous, isn't it?

Since most of these people have no intention of running, or at least haven't done the first thing toward that goal?

On edit: Still, I vote Kerry. Not because anything's particularly wrong with him. I just don't think he's got a chance after losing the last election. Need new blood.

[Catchawave]

5. I had drafting in mind too....

As the major playa's are already PAC'ing on the nets and snail mail to raise money for the DNC/DLC/DSCC/DCCC, those always aren't the most popular with progressive dems..yes, no ?

[Jai4WKC08]

36. Not sure I follow either of ya

Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Warner, Clark and Feingold have all made noises about running in '08. That's most of the list, so I don't see any subterfuge in plugging folks are unlikely to run. The only obvious others I see missing are Bayh and Richardson, and they're hardly "new blood." Who do y'all have in mind?

As for the PAC'ing... sure, it's happening. Does every cycle. Probably more now with the FEC restrictions on direct contributions to campaigns, but for whatever reasons, having a PAC is the way the game is played.

But I don't see that the PACs raise money for the DNC/DLC etc. In the best cases, they work in conjunction with those outfits, which ones depending on the PACer. For example... I don't keep close watch on what the other potential candidates are up to, but I do know the DCCC paid for Clark's robo-calls in support of Hackett in Ohio, whereas WesPAC funds went for the endorsement and some of the other lesser expenses. Why on earth would that be unpopular with any progressive dems?

Nor do I see that PAC'ing is necessarily offensive to progressive dems, or grassrooters either. Wouldn't that depend totally on the PAC sponsor, and where most of his or her support comes from? A helluva lot of WesPAC funds come from the 'roots, just like the Clark04 money did. How progressive we are depends on your POV, I guess. We like to think we're pretty liberal, but I suppose not everyone at DU sees us that way. ;)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I have only two real choices here, but I chose Clinton.

I absolutely, positively do not believe she can win. Too many people hate her and she'll do nothing more than rally their base into a lather once again.

[Catchawave]

3. Yes, this is supposed to be "hard work"....

:grouphug:

The 'elimination' process may be more difficult than the 'obsession' process. That's why I used the DU Groups as a guide. If they have that kind of support on DU, they're all potential nominees in my honest opinion!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Sorry Mr. Kerry, I won't have your back again. You CAN NOT win

p.s Clark all the way. He is brilliant. And he is against this insane bogus invasion and rape of Iraq.

[Catchawave]

6. Doesn't he have a history of flip-flopping ?

I like Wes, but he's no more qualified to run the country than any of the others, and he brings 'swift boat' baggage, not to mention the *paid* gig on Fox. More dems see him as a sellout to the RW MSM, than a liberal voice :dilemma:

[kevsand]

7. Um, no.

The only possible instance of flip-flopping was in fact a misrepresentation of Clark's actual position on Iraq. The day after his announcement, he was in a conversation with several reporters, and apparently was thinking out loud about the war resolution.

In that conversation, as well as in talks with some congresspeople, he indicated that he understood the tactic of using the resolution as leverage on Saddam, but he was also clear throughout that there would have to be thorough safeguards and oversight in any resolution that he would support; i.e., no blank checks.

He has been very clear from the beginning about his opposition to the war, his doubts about its justification, and his disappointment with the lack of planning for the post-war. He has also consistently chided Bush for his unilateralism.

This was probably too nuanced for the MSM, and Clark has been careful ever since not to give them that kind of opening again. Help me out Clarkies, is this a fair accounting of what actually happened? I am unaware of any other allegations of flip-flopping.

As to "swift-boat baggage", I don't see how that will be possible in light of the seriousness of his wounds and the universal testimonies as to his actual heroism under fire. They may try, but he won't take it lying down.

And the Fox gig is actually a plus, in that he's taking his common sense message to people who might not get it unfiltered otherwise, and boosting his name rep, to boot. What's wrong with that?

Clark is consistently out there all over the country every day, working for both issues and candidates in order to help rebuild the party in support of Dean's vision. He's one of the hardest working Dems we have right now.

(End of soapbox...)

ON EDIT: Were you talking about Kerry or Clark when you asked about flip-flopping? From the rest of your post, I assumed it was Clark, but in looking back, I could have misinterpreted that. If so, my apologies in advance...

[Catchawave]

8. From 2003....just one of many articles

from progressive websites:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Like I said, too much baggage :( If we can't clarify this on DU, how can we clean it up for the voters in 2008 ?

[kevsand]

10. Got anything new?

That page, and every item on it, was hashed and rehashed and overwhelmingly refuted almost two years ago, and every single time it's come back up since. I'm cleaning my house right now, but if you really need me to I can get you the laundry list of rebuttals over the weekend. They've all been posted over and over here at DU, and it's clear that at least a plurality (if not an outright majority) of DUers no longer accept any of the items on that page as valid.

As to whether we can explain that to the voters, I suggest that the same question can be asked of any candidate. Look at what happened to a fundamentally decent man like Kerry. Give me sufficient time and resources, and I could come up with a similar collection of half truths and outright distortions about anyone. I've seen it done many times to local candidates, as well.

The big difference with Clark is that he'll be in people's faces with his defenses, much like we just saw Hackett do. A slander only works to the extent that it is allowed to, regardless of who the candidate is.

[Catchawave]

16. Clark's okay, don't get me wrong.....

...but the baggage is still there. :shrug:

[kevsand]

21. Sometimes I think the seriousness of a candidate

can be judged partially by how much so-called "baggage" there is. Some candidates have real baggage, but most of what passes for it these days is made up by their detractors, and I think that applies equally to most of the potential candidates in this poll. The more people fear someone, the more crap they make up.

I am generally favorable to nearly all of the people on this list, and just don't know enough about the others. I also have areas of disagreement with many of them, and have seen some outrageous nonsense circulated about more than a few. But if it came down to it, I would work my butt off for any of them in a general election.

A great deal will depend, I think, on how much each of them helps the overall cause in 2006.

[Catchawave]

27. I agree, 2006 is more than

filling PAC war chests right now. I'm watching everyone on this list too :kick:

[Jai4WKC08]

33. Well, it has all been "clarified" on DU many times

Not to mention completely disproven. The only people who buy that stuff are the ones who want to believe it too much. Kinda like the koolade-drinking Repubs who refuse to accept the FACTS about what BushCo is doing and has done. They live in their own little reality and you can't punch into it.

But do you really think the average Dem voter, even those who are relatively progressive (who, sadly, are not the majority), give a rat's ass about dissidentvoice.org? Most don't even know what it is.

I do agree that a large chunk of primary voters are gonna be extra sensitive about how any potential candidate can be "swift-boated." But I think most of those who are politically aware enough to be tuned into that potential realize that any Democratic nominee will be attacked on some bullshit from his or her past. They'll be looking instead for who will fight back against the noise machine and smack down its lies down before they can take hold.

One reason Clinton polls so well, aside from simple name recognition, is that she's proven she's tough enough not to let the smears get to her. But she hasn't proven she can shut them down. Clark has, to some small extent, altho admitedly nothing like he'll see in a general election. I happen to think he'll do just fine, and I think his reputation for toughness and strength (remember how his support soared with his "We'll beat the shit out of 'em" response) will help him convince people he can stand up to whatever the Repugs can throw his way.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Talking about Clark. For fuck's sake, do we really need to play primary?

NOW?! Divisive. Unnecessary. Wrong focus. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

2006!

I don't wanna talk about how Clark is better than Kerry or Kerry is better than Clark or how we won't support Hillary but Bayh can win and won't you people see that my guy is the best, blah, blah, blah.

2006!

We don't need any one candidate to win. WE need to win. ALL of us. We need to help Howard Dean build up the grassroots big and strong. We do not need to separate ourselves into little primary camps NOW!

2006!

[FrenchieCat]

12. I agree that 2006 is most important.....

But LittleClarkie, What's this, then? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1986524&mesg_id=1986524

[LittleClarkie]

13. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1986524&mesg_id=1987836

[FrenchieCat]

15. Ok.....you're being consistent then......

so all is ok.

:hi:

[kevsand]

17. Point well taken.

And I agree. I try very hard not to ever start these things, but I was in autorespond mode on that one. Sorry.

[LittleClarkie]

18. No probs. I get that way with Kerry as well

I'm just trying to redirect folks. We've had 2008-itis lately, and I still think it's too damn early.

[Catchawave]

22. It's GD-P for heaven's sake....

...you'd be pissed at me if I did this to a Clark poll :shrug:

And yes, it has everything to do with 2006. My state's already being swift boated in the '05 gov race. Maybe we can get Wes to come here and kick some butt for us?

For me...it's 2005, 2005, 2005....where's my party now ?

[LittleClarkie]

23. For me, it's a guy named Bryan Kennedy who's gotta

get rid of Sensenbrenner.

[Catchawave]

25. Let us know how we can help.....

..and you know that means a small donation if we can't put boots on the ground. LTTE's too?

Links (preferably start a new thread!) and I'm sure we can use the DU Activists Forum for local and state races?

[kwvining]

35. Flip

The Kerry campaign was simply not smart enough to win, and got rope-a-doped at every turn. The flip-flop tag stuck because the Kerry campaign failed to point to Bush's own incredible record of flip-flops while at the same time stating that wise decision making sometimes requires new thinking, and then presenting himself as the champion of new thinking. Instead we simply got the same old consultant driven political calculation crap that is eating this party alive. He lost me the day that he said that "if we knew everything about the war we know today, I still would have voted as I did", that is, to invade Iraq. That one statement convinced me that he was too stupid to be President. While I voted for him, I never put the work into his campaign that I did in the Dean campaign. He said it because rather than have the guts to admit the war was a mistake, he was so worried about the flip-flopper tag he was willing to shoot himself in the ass with his core constituency. I think in that one statement he lost for sure the Dean voters, and probably all the committed activists in the party. After that, he was on his own, and his staff was simply outclassed by the Rove machine.

Gov Dean is currently changing this party from one heavily influenced by corporate and special interest contributors to one based on grass roots financing. He is trying to get us to see that we need a consistent message that is more broadly based in the concerns of the average American working person - not in some special interest group. We need candidates who reflect this kind of thinking. I really don't know if I have seen any yet.

[Clark2008]

31. No they don't

Regular Dems see him as finally getting a fucking voice on Faux.

Catch - you've been baiting the Wes thing tonight. Why?

[politicasista]

19. Nice job trashing other dems while hyping up your own

That will help us win in 06 and 08.:boring:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. thanks - but I have no plans to "go along' this time - with a tidal

wave for the "wrong" candidate, just because Democrats fell for the bullshit trap of the repugs. Gotta get behind someone, united, early. This time, it is more important to get the right person. Someone who speaks from the very depth of their soul with courage of conviction.

[MH1]

32. "Someone who speaks from the very depth of their soul..."

Sounds like you're talking about John Kerry. Have you ever listened to him without the media filter? Have you ever listened to him when he's really amped?

I'm sorry you think Kerry was the "wrong" candidate, but there's a lot of us for who he was the "right" candidate. And you know what? I'd rather look at Bush voters with the smugness of "Kerry was right, you dickwad", than hang my head and say "sory we didn't pick a better candidate." That's BULLSHIT. And I don't think it helps the Democratic Party at ALL for 2008 to say "oh geez, we fucked up picking a candidate in 2004. But please trust us again - we promise to get it right this time."

fwiw, I always thought "the bullshit trap of the repugs" in 2004 was all the hype around Howard Dean, with the media trying to spin his internet and youth support as true democratic party base support. Now, I like Howard - alot - but IMO the repugs would've ripped him to shreds as a presidential candidate - Rove was salivating at the prospect - and Howard's lack of base support showed up in Iowa. Meanwhile Kerry was pretty much counted out - even by me - but all of a sudden comes on strong to win Iowa. For me it was the debates - I didn't watch them all but every time I did, I really came away thinking Kerry gave the best performance. So I don't get this thing about how Kerry was supposedly "picked" by the establishment or the rethugs or something. *I* picked Kerry, and so did a lot of other people I know. So I wish you all would get off of that shit.

[Catchawave]

9. I am so inspired.....

Keep on keeping on guys...hate to think Hil's going to be my first elimination for the next round? Then again, DU is my most trusted source for the heartbeat of America :patriot: :popcorn: :patriot:

[Progressive420]

14. It has to be Edwards

he is the least qualified of any of them he is our dan quayle though some people refuse to believe it.

[LittleClarkie]

20. Are you spoofing or being serious

I need coffee I think.

Nevertheless, I like Edwards when he's not in shyster "Aw shucks" mode. Whichever advisor who taught him that approach should be shot.

[Catchawave]

24. No, Edwards is NOT Danny-Potatoe Quayle.....

Quayle made it to Veep ! :silly:

And we should "study" that campaign reallllly carefully NOW, not in 2007 :kick:

[Catchawave]

26. Go Barbara :)

Very interesting poll so far !

[nickshepDEM]

28. Boxer.

[usregimechange]

30. Bye Hillary...

[Jai4WKC08]

34. Couldn't we all just vote and not waste energy trashing...

Our least favorites?

I suppose that's not the established DU tradition. :P

[darkism]

37. Anybody but Hillary

Let's make the bumper stickers! :p

[Jai4WKC08]

38. I thought I'd kick this

While I still can. Feeling guilty that my "let's not trash the folks we don't like" put this in the cellar prematurely. Maybe it deserves as much, but I thought it was sort of interesting.

Can't we add something positive about the folks we like best?