Kucinich's lack of success is not due to being overlooked by the MSM

[cali]

at least not entirely. If that was the case, how would you explain Howard Dean, who was at least as obscure as Dennis when he first started running. Dean sparked something in people and that got him coverage. Through two election cycles now, Dennis just hasn't been able to do that, and I keep reading reasons why that hasn't happened. Usually they fault the media. I just don't see how you can make that argument.

[ray of light]

1. $$$ $$$$ $$$$ talks. Dean was raking in online money while the

others were not. So Dean stood out for that reason alone.

[cali]

2. not at first he wasn't

and WHY was he raking in that money? Because he struck a spark, connected with voters and took off. That's what Dennis hasn't done.

[rjones2818]

3. I think it's because of people

who present themselves somewhat as supporters (of his ideas, if not himself) and then go and tear him down.

[cali]

4. cute dig

but that hardly accounts for why he hasn't garnered greater support. And if you think this is tearing him down, you need to get a clue. It's called analysis.

[rjones2818]

6. Y'see...

I actually do think it's the media and the electorate. And I think it has to do a great deal with not being able to analyze. The media, for the most part, is corporatized and money grubbing. There's not much money that they're going to get from a Kucinich campaign. He's not a media darling (note that Dodd and Biden are much more media darlings and they're not moving either). Dennis presents a non-conventional wisdom agenda. He's a liberal from the FDR school, and that's not acceptable to the conventional wisdom. Add to it the fact that most of the 'progressive' alternative media have written him off (too short, not pretty enough, doesn't play the game, etc.) and he doesn't get the coverage. As far as analysis goes, Dennis seems to be the most Democratic candidate of the Democrats. Apparently the electorate doesn't really do any analysis, they go with the flavors of the day.

Now, if Dennis goes ahead and brings forth his impeachment resolution, you may well see some movement, 'cause he'll be seen as a Dem with spine. That is, if the resolution gets covered, but then that's the media playing in again....

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!

[cali]

11. you still haven't addressed the fact that

the media virtually ignored dean except to make fun of him, for the first year he was running. How come Dean was able to resonate with voters and kucinich wasn't?

[rjones2818]

35. Dean was the only outsider who caught on in the Blogosphere.

Plus, he didn't have the 800 lb. gorilla of the Hillary campaign to deal with. Or the 600 lb. gorilla which is the Obama campaign. In the 2004 campaign, Dean became the 'progressive' alternative probably mostly through the work of Move On. The thing to remember is that Dennis came in 2nd in Move On's polling. If Dennis would have gotten that support, then things might have been different.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Dean was on the cover of both Time and Newsweek in summer 2003, not "ignored"

Here's an excerpt from a Brooks and Shields segment from August 8, 2003:
________________________

RAY SUAREZ: So there's no carryover at all to the Chicago event?

MARK SHIELDS: No carryover at all. The story in Chicago was two: One was Howard Dean, who walks in with the cover of Newsweek and Time both under his belt that very week, and the campaign saying he is peaking too early. I asked each of them, I said, well, would you turn down the covers of Newsweek and Time in August? And they all admitted of course they would not. And the knock on him was that he is cranky, unpleasant and too abrupt. And you saw Dennis Kucinich, who turned out to be the last angry man in America on Tuesday night and Howard Dean, by contrast, looked like a California beach boy, mellow and laid back compared to Kucinich.
'

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec03/sb_08-08.html

[cali]

41. yes. and that was AFTER he struck a spark

with voters. he'd been in the race for over a year at that time. and when he started, he was as unknown as Dennis.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Dennis struck sparks with those who actually got to hear him

:shrug:

His first appearance in the Twin Cities drew 800 people, his second drew 1600, and his third drew 2500, all with little publicity, just word of mouth.

Word of mouth and guerilla campaigning was all we had, since, for example, the New York Times made a habit of printing the daily schedule of every candidate (including Sharpton) except Dennis, and even our local papers here in the Twin Cities (where he got 27% of the vote) ignored him until local volunteers badgered the media.

Even then, TV stations filmed his appearances and then didn't run any footage on their news programs. On the night of his second appearance, he was crowded off the local TV stations by a scandal involving some rural sheriff who was having an affair.

[flvegan]

5. That was kinda idiotic.

But opinions are just that sometimes.

[cuke]

7. Care to share why?

Just want to make sure your opinions are not "just that"

[flvegan]

9. No. One would really have to be ignorant not to see why.

[cuke]

17. Thank you

I have everything I need to know

[cali]

20. you are so much more

courteous to those who make rude and offensive remarks than I am. I just get rude right back. It's far more admirable to do what you do.

[cali]

8. Fact: Howard Dean began his candidacy unknown with

virtually no funding. Fact: A year later he started resonating with potential voters. Fact: Dennis Kucinich started that same year virtually unknown. Fact: he never got more 3 or so percent of the voters backing him.

That ain't opinion, boyo.

[flvegan]

10. "Kucinich's lack of success is not due to being overlooked by the MSM" IS opinion

Comparing a current candidate to a former candidate without any base of comparison (time/place/media/situation)...opinion.

Boyo.

[cali]

13. Both Kucinich and Dean ran in 2004. So, how about

comparing their runs in that year? Why did Dean take off and Kucinich didn't?

(and yes, it is opinion, based on fact, that the lack of coverage by the MSM, is not wholly the cause of Kucinich's lack of success in attracting voters)

[flvegan]

16. "and yes, it is opinion"

Like I said.

[cali]

18. NO. only part of it is opinion. Either you're playing dumb

or you just don't want to deal with a VALID comparison. 'Forget it. your responses don't even deserve to be called opinion. They're disingenuous and pathetic.

[flvegan]

21. "Forget it. your response don't even deserve to be called that. They're disingenuous and pathetic."

English. It'd be good to get a grip on it.

See, I can go there, too.

[cali]

24. you started there. and yes, i left an "s" off of the

word "responses". thanks for pointing it out. and seeing as i write some of the cleaner english, you'll find on this board, you're little nitpicking there, was fairly amusing.

now, how about firing up the old brain cells, and answering my original question: how come two candidates who started off in similar positions in the same year, received such different receptions from the voters?

I won't hold my breath. I don't think you have a clue.

[flvegan]

26. So you think a missing "s" is your big mistake?

Reread, k.

[cali]

28. I think you're not interested in

actually responding to the substance of what I wrote re Dean and Kucinich in the 2004 cycle. And I can only use conjecture as to why that is: I'm guessing that you simply don't have anything reasonable that counters what I wrote, and thus you're doing your best to avoid actually making an argument as to why the comparison is incorrect.

[cuke]

31. Some people don't have the confidence to put their opinions on the line

Don't harass him just because he can't take the heat. He obviously can't explain himself

[flvegan]

43. Yeah, with a screen name like flvegan...

You suuuuure showed me.

Ha ha.

Mark.

[cali]

44. no. you did that all by yourself. n't

[flvegan]

46. Did what? Jesus, that doesn't even make sense.

[cali]

47. sure it does. you showed yourself to be a person more interested

in playing little games than discussing an issue.

[flvegan]

50. I Did? Oh, dear.

Kucinich's lack of success is not due to being overlooked by the MSM

Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 08:25 PM by cali
at least not entirely. If that was the case, how would you explain Howard Dean, who was at least as obscure as Dennis when he first started running. Dean sparked something in people and that got him coverage. Through two election cycles now, Dennis just hasn't been able to do that, and I keep reading reasons why that hasn't happened. Usually they fault the media. I just don't see how you can make that argument.

How sad, playing little games. How pathetic that your points are really, well, just that. You know...pathetic.

[cali]

53. how pathetic is it that

you, like so many Kucinich supporters, can't handle even the tiniest bit of criticism of your candidate. That's the trouble with deciding that one's candidate is a Saint.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Having The Ability to Make Liberalism Seem Like Common Sense is Key

Like many others here, I believe in the principles he espouses, but I think he does a pretty lousy job of making them seem normal (did I mention I love the guy?).

One of the reasons I dig Obama so much is that he is able to make progressive policies and ideas seem commonplace (Jon Stewart does this very well, too).

Although DK was completely in the right when he was hopping up and down during the 2004 asking "Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?" over and over, he looked a little unhinged.

Feel free to flame me, but I think projecting stability is important and not at all contradictory of a liberal agenda. I think Hillary Clinton unfortunately believes that projecting stability means having to look "tough" with actual hawkish positions.

[cali]

14. no flames from me.

i agree with you.

[rucky]

15. Are you trying to say that Dean became famous before MSM coverage?

:rofl:

[cali]

19. er, no. I'm saying he started to resonate with voters

before he started getting much MSM coverage, and that he started getting that coverage because he was resonating with voters and starting to raise a few bucks. Don't make things so easy.

[rucky]

23. uh huh. n/t

[cali]

25. now that's just a brilliant response.

wow. amazingly insightful.

[rucky]

29. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[bullwinkle428]

22. In Iowa, it's a complete lack of an organization in place.

I really wish he took this state more seriously, and I think it's a fatal error to essentially ignore it.

[nosmokes]

27. It's because Dennis isn't Tall and Manly. His message is a winner.

It's simply that that this culture has been weaned on the tit of Hollywood and we think our *Leading Man* needs to be 6'4" and built like an athlete and rugged if not good looking and the kind of guy you wanna have a beer with , when is s/he the kinda of person that can keep the country safe and provide an environment for job creation and education and healthcare is what matters because the odds of having a cold one w/ the POTUS are exactly zero.Kuchinich is more than capable of being our president and if the Dem machine would back him then he'd have a chance. But w/ all the namby pamby we can't vote for anyone who's unelectable you create a self-fulfilling scenario that guarantees mediocrity where everyone is always going to be keeping one eye on the polls and never willing to take a bold stand that may prove to be challenging.

[cali]

34. Dean is the same height as Kucinich

how come Dean broke through to voters and Kucinich didn't?

[MGKrebs]

36. That might help, but we are not voting for a policy statement.

We are voting for a leader. DK's good message is qualification only for "advisor" or "speechwriter" (or Representative for his district apparently). And if we all know that looks are part of the equation, what is DK doing to overcome that?

The campaign process let's us evaluate more than just policy statements. The process is no secret: Develop whatever base you have so that you gain enough support to reach out to a larger group and use that support to reach out some more. If your support never gets beyond your original base, you are not going to win.

The other scenario is that DK is running an "outsider" campaign, but depending on insider support (the media) to succeed. That is a losing strategy. If you are going to run an outsider campaign, you need to have a plan to succeed outside of the insider machine.

In any case, the media will get on board if there is a good story. You have to give them some drama, some reason to devote a reporter to the story.

[cobalt1999]

30. Not being front and center in the MSM is mostly an excuse.

It boils down to a false premise..."If only everyone knew what I knew, then they'd believe (or support) what I believe in". The premise is also reworded as "people don't think, they let the media pick their candidate for them", but it's still the same bad assumption.

Vegetarians will use similar arguments..."If people only knew what I know, then they'd all be veggies", or Christians thinking "If only we could spread the word, everyone would come to christ".

What all these groups have in common is the inability to recognize that their idea (or candidate in this case), isn't popular for reasons beyond "education of the masses".

If someone blames the media, then they don't have to examine their idea or candidate in the cold light of rational logic, and, maybe, even come to the conclusion that they aren't some elite educated person who can see through the MSM. That might be tough on the ego.

[cuke]

32. That is a very perceptive post

thanks

[penguin7]

49. This does not explain why Kucinich is the only real anti-war

candidate and the only candidate backing single payer health care.

Something is wrong. The media must be a big part of the problem.

[cobalt1999]

54. You are a good example of what I was talking about.

Like I said...What all these groups have in common is the inability to recognize that their idea (or candidate in this case), isn't popular for reasons beyond "education of the masses".

The media is not his problem, corporations are not his problem, even his height is not his problem. To understand the "something is wrong", you're going to have to critically examine him without latching onto the easy and ego flattering excuses.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Dean's waaaaay more conservative and mainstream, that's why

Kucinich is simply more to the left than most of most people. He's a truly honorable man and he's not trying to do anything that most of us don't want. In fact, much of what he wants to institute is inevitable; it's just not possible now.

The ship of state is a huge containerized cargo vessel; it needs to turn slowly so people don't get hurt by the change. Kucinich thinks it's more of a speedboat that can turn on a dime, and it simply can't.

One of the things that incensed me so much about Dean being snotty and claiming to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party was that he was almost the most conservative of the bunch up on the stage back in '03. In fact, if you take away Lieberman's Israel-over-everything fixation and his wacky pornography obsession, he was. Okay, maybe Clark...

[cali]

38. sure Dean's not as liberal as Kucinich

but he's hardly what you make him out to be either. Oh, and I'm from Vermont, so unless you are too, I'll wager you don't know as much about him as I do. Dean is about as honorable a politician as I've known, though he did piss me off at times when he was gov.

i do agree with you about the ship of state though.

And I'm sure Kucinish is honorable, but I see him playing to his base, just like any other politician. He talks the talk, and he votes right, but he's not been terribly successful getting legislation through. And it's not just about his serving in a republican House. Bernie Sanders passed more amendments from 1995 to 2004 than any other member of the House.

[stranger81]

37. The way I see it, it isn't that he's not being covered -- it's that he's being marginalized

and ridiculed by the MSM -- exactly the same treatment dished out to Gore in 2000 and Dean in 2004. Remember the "Dean Scream"? That media fiction derailed his whole campaign.

[cali]

39. nah, Dean had lost a lot of momentum before Iowa

and the phony scream thing just capped it. And it can't just be all about the media. He's doing things wrong, like not running in Iowa. My theory is that he's not serious about running, but he is serious about getting his ideas out there.

[penguin7]

45. Dean had serious media attention and the media treated him as

a serious candidate.

I actually donated to the Dean campaign last election cycle, and this was completely because of the media. I was not following the internet at all.

[cali]

48. nope. he had zip media attention for the first year

of his campaign. Believe me, I know. I live in Vermont, and I followed his campaign closely from the beginning. He got voter attention before he started getting media attention.

[eridani]

51. Because in 2004 the new role of the Internet in campaigns was a horse race story n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

52. Some theories...

Dean has a generally normal background as a politician, and can be regarded as a relatively normal person. Dean took Iowa and the campaign seriously by establishing offices and recruiting staffers.

Kuch is generally ineffective as a politician with dubious timing in regards to changes to his stance on certain key issues, and can easy easily viewed as a total nutjob. Kuch didn't take the campaign seriously and had virtually no offices and staff. In reality, the '04 campaign was an excuse for Kuch to score dates.