political scientist please check in (national issue)

[mdmc]

There is alot of talk about the dems being either more dlc like or more green.

My question: How would 2004 be different if Kucinich and Clark were on the ticket? Since we didn't win, why would we be worse off?

#2: If we can't represent the left, how do we get folks like Zell Miller back into the dem fold? Would he oppose Lieberman in the same way he opposed Kerry?

The DLC wants us to take back the Zell Millers. The Greens want us to progressively stand in opposition to the GOP.

Is there another way?

[displacedtexan]

1. Form a coalition

I'm beginning to believe that a coalition of leftwing political parties and machines is our only hope.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. I'm looking for a new third party

that will encompass disenfranchised DEMS like me, the Greens and the large portion of this country that consider themselves Independent or No Party.

I think at this point a split in the DEM party will be a good thing. Even if they don't split, I will never vote for any DEM who did not stand up yesterday, so obviously it is time for folks like me to move on and get a fresh start with other like minded brave souls. It is obvious that the majority of our elected officials only care about their sorry asses and could care less about folks like me.

[Inland]

3. Ante hoc vs. post hoc

The difference is that Kerry had a chance to win, and Kucinich didn't.

Therefore unless you think the purpose of elections is to lose them, you would never pick Kucinich.

[mdmc]

4. And why did Kerry have "a chance" to win?

What made him viable (Liberal Senator from MA, ANTI-war hero)?
What made him think that he could play outside of the blue states?

I was a Dean supporter (and I don't think this election would have been better with Ho Ho at the helm - I think Kerry was our most electable chance, but I NEVER thought that he, or Dean, could beat Bush). Kerry generated NO excitement. At least Dean made waves and Kucinich gave us some hope.

[patcox2]

6. The fact he got more votes than any candidate in history except W.

Kerry got more votes than Gore, more than Reagan, more than any candidate in history except W in this election. He lost by the narrowest margin ever against a sitting president.

This means that he "could have won." This is the evidence that he was in fact a viable candidate. If not for the obviously faked Osama video that the CIA released right before the election, he might have won (I was so attacked for just stating that that video was tailor made for Bush and would help him by scaring the idiots). If he had aggressively attacked Bush, he might have won. Whereas, Kucinich would not have won ever, under any circumstances.

Does that mean Kerry was the best candidate? Absolutely not. But you are probably never going to get the theoretical "best" candidate. Look at Bush, is he the "best" among the republicans? Hell no, he's an obviously incompetent idiot. Even many republicans hold their nose when they vote for him. Yet he wins because they all stand behind him and support him out of party loyalty. The dems, on the other hand, do things like say "I am quitting the party" or "I hate the DLC" or "Lets go green," and foment dissent within the party, and divide themselves and lose. Its all pretty simple, really.

[Inland]

10. Kerry DID have a chance to win. Kerry DID generate excitement

although perhaps not with you.

I guess it comes down to this perception that making waves and giving hope counts for something if the candidate gets trounced. Do you think that a Dean "wave" would still be rocking the world today? To the extent that Kucinich would have given you hope, what was it for? Not that there would be someone besides Bush in the white house now.

It comes down to this: democrats think elections are about discussing issues. They aren't. They are about choosing the people who will be given power. Presumably, the people chosen will use that power to enact the positions they espoused, and not the positions of the loser. Close doesn't count for much, and not coming close counts for even less, and clarity, waves, and hope count for nothing at all.

And I don't think we can comfort ourselves into thinking that this loss somehow sets up the next election, because in that election, democrats will still fail to see that the purpose of elections is to win.

[mdmc]

13. it seems like we are in one big party rep-o-dems

I understand it is about winning.

[Skidmore]

5. Perhaps the problem is that

going for the safe choice (Kerry) undermines the message. I would rather have had someone that could convey a clearly differentiated message from that of the Rs.

[Inland]

9. Why, if that person is bound to lose?

If you want to send a message, take out an ad in the New York Times. What do you think happens to the message of the candidate who gets creamed? Do you think the congress and administration are going to concede to the message of the losing candidate because it was clear and well defined as the voters rejected it?

Furthermore, I reject the dichotomy between safe (by which we actually mean candidates who might win) and unclear messages.

[Skidmore]

11. I'll be sure to work that ad it the NYT into my

family budget next election cycle. We don't make enough in a year to cover such an expense.

The voters will not reject a message that is straight and truthful, which is not what we get when we go for safe. When we go for safe, we get verbal contortions accompanied by dramatic poses. I want a straight talking person who speaks truth and from the heart. I don't need an orator.

Why is this so hard to understand? Perhaps there is a large group of us who are sick of the games and manipulations professional political handlers.

[Inland]

12. So you want a message that will win.

By which you mean, I want a candidate who will win. I don't have a problem with that. What does that have to do with Kucinich?

I don't have a problem with clear, concise and truthful communication. It simply isn't a substitute for winning. I don't think that we have to make a choice between truth, good solid positions and winning. And we don't need (or want) our own lying piece of shit to counter Bush's qualities in order to win. But we still need to win or all the messages go in the dumpster with the full page ad in the NYT.

[rman]

7. Kucinich would have had zero chance in the media

he would probably have been portrayed as a commie.

[theboss]

8. With Kucinich, we lose 50 states

It's still unclear to me how Clark would have done nationally. I'd like him, but I'm not convinced he was quite ready for prime time yet. Maybe in 2008.

[InvisibleBallots]

14. with Kerry, we lost enough states to lose the Presidency

and we came across as the unprincipled two-faced politicians that we supported. Kucinich and Clark may be far apart on issues, or closer than we think, but neither one were the pathetic snowboarding wimp that Kerry was. We'd have at least had a dignified loss, the kind that energizes a movement for future generations (see Barry Goldwater).