Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThose echoes that Americans are hearing in the noisy-and-getting-noisier debate about Iran are from 2002 and 2003, when members of the current administration were busy spinning the fantasy that the United States needed to attack Iraq.
George "Uranium From Africa" Bush sure sounds like he wants to attack Iran. Just last week, the president said, "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from (obtaining) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Dick "Greeted As Liberators" Cheney sure sounds like he wants to attack Iran. This week, the vice president declared: "Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions."
Secretary of State Condoleezza "Mushroom Clouds" Rice sure sounds like she wants to attack Iran. "Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon..." Rice said on Thursday, as she announced drastic new sanctions against the country that serious analysts say poses little threat to its neighbors and no real threat to the U.S.
And, as in 2002 and early 2003, the most rational response is coming from Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who says, "After the lies and deception used to lead us to war in Iraq, the belligerent Bush Administration cannot be given leeway with statements that suggest a preemptive attack on Iran is necessary," says Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod who deserves a much better hearing that he has been afforded so far by the media and Democratic power brokers. "We are systematically destroying every available route to restoring peace and security in the Middle East," he adds.
Kucinich may be running for the White House, but his message is most relevant to Capitol Hill. "Congress," he says, "must take back its exclusive authority to declare war from the Bush Administration."
He's right.
But being right is not always enough in tenuous times.
Being heard is what matters.
It could well be that the American experiment's best hope lies in the remote prospect that, having been proven right in 2002 and 2003, it will be Kucinich's counsel -- as opposed to that of Bush, Cheney and Rice -- that is heeded in this new moment of peril.
The point here is not a political one. This is not about whether Kucinich becomes president, or the Democratic nominee, or even a strong contender in his race with cautious Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This is about the most fundamental question in a democracy: At a time when talk of war is growing louder, will we hear a real debate or merely the exaggerated echoes of those who have never gotten anything right?
The answer could well be measured by the extent to which Dennis Kucinich and those who stood with him in 2002 and 2003 are afforded the forums that their record of having been able to cut through the spin of the past should afford them in the present.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Okay, Mr Nichols, enough of this Dennis Kucinich apologia CRAP!
"says Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod who deserves a much better hearing that he has been afforded so far by the media and Democratic power brokers."
First off, Dennis is absolutely right about Iran and the Bushites.
But second....Dennis IS "being heard". He's at the major debates. And gets his chance to speak. Nothing preventing folks (remember the "always about to become" "powerful" "netroots") from donating to his campaign in numbers AS THEY HAVE RON PAUL (I might note).
Dennis is NOT being "shut out". The truth is much more difficult to accept among folks such as yourself...
Among DEMOCRATS....Dennis is NOT their leading choice for President. (Polling at 1-3%).
Just like Dean four years ago, there is NOTHING preventing Dennis (more of a household name now that he's run already once in 2004) from garnering the same "grassroots"/"netroots" support that Dean garnered as "an unknown governor from Maple Syrup Land".
Sorry, but despite him being right on Iraq and Iran....Dennis is not being "silenced"....he's being ignored....and NOT by "the Media" or "Democratic power brokers"...
but by Democratic primary voters!
Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 2:09pm
Let's see: Bush, Cheney & Rice on one side in an orchestrated disinformation, war-drum-beating campaign; and Dennis Kucinich on the other, who Democratic leadership won't even listen to when it comes to impeachment, and aren't even embarassed by how he is marginalized at every debate and, in fact, at every opportunity along the campaign trail.
If these are indeed the two possibilities, the powers of peace seem to be in an overwhelmingly inferior position than the powers of darkness, even at this late date, even when it comes to Iran.
Gee, who'd a thunk?
If they ever put Kucinich in the middle of the Democratic debate proceedings and asked him more than a throwaway question or two, rather than treating him like an unwanted child by putting him out on the edge where no one can even see him, much less hear him, maybe we'll get somewhere. Until someone gets this seemingly fundamental right correct, no one is going to hear Dennis, not even the leaders of the Democratic Party for chrissake, much less the American people themselves.
Brilliant. Democracy in action. Can't beat it, as they say...
Posted by Scrub at 10/25/2007 @ 2:12pm
seems like according to the definition of "terrorist state" the ubited states could well qualify, based on our actions since ww2. how many regimes have we helped overthrow? how many brutal dictators have we financed? how many times have we threatened a tactical nuke strike?
i say go ahead and attack. do it bushco. attack the 70 million nation of iran...they cant hurt us...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/25/2007 @ 2:26pm
Posted by SCRUB 10/25/2007 @ 2:12pm
i bet he'd become prez if shot up some growth hormone and got the earoplasty done.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/25/2007 @ 2:28pm
Posted by SCRUB 10/25/2007 @ 2:12pm
So in other words, Dennis can't convince anybody to vote for him in the 7-8 minutes he gets during a nationally televised debate....so GIVE him more time (and a "choice spot" in the middle) so that he can compete?
And what if THAT doesn't convince the non-ONE PERCENT who support him?
Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 4:02pm
So John/TN, When will you have an online discussion with Mr. Kucinich so he can be 'heard' by the masses?
Where are the REAL interviews comparing the candidates and the issues at hand?
I'd like to see a one-by-one expose, if you will, of each candidate (starting with the shortest one first!) and their plan for restoring America's standing in the world, socially, economically, fiscally, morally, etc.
I want hard facts and plans, not vague non-answers to tough questions.
Thanks...Rowdy! Go Dennis!
Posted by Rowdy at 10/25/2007 @ 4:20pm
Regarding Dennis Kucinich it is interesting that he gets so little respect in the "main stream" media because all he continues to do is speak the truth in plain terms on some of the most critical issues we face. I would argue that the general disrespect he gets from the TV punditocracy has a significant rub off effect on many people who might otherwise consider voting for him.
One example of Kucinich's surreptitious popularity is the ongoing poll for a Democratic presidential nominee at Democracy for America's website. After Gore at 28% --a write-in by the way-- is Kucinich at 23%. Hillary is in 6th behind Bill Richardson.
The kicker is that the poll lets voters select their top three choices which --I would guess-- is how Kucinich has garnered the high ranking. Voters forced to make one pick would be more inclined to choose a candidate that they've been led to believe by the prevailing winds of "main stream" propaganda to be "electable".
If we truly wish to retrieve our Republic we will probably have to find a way to clear the jungle of the "main stream" strangler vines that are choking off rational discourse.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/25/2007 @ 4:31pm
Sorry, but despite him being right on Iraq and Iran....Dennis is not being "silenced"....he's being ignored....and NOT by "the Media" or "Democratic power brokers"...
but by Democratic primary voters!
Posted by MASK 10/25/2007 @ 2:09pm
MASK,
I don't buy it. Even Bill Cosby was on CNN saying he really liked Kucinich over Hillary or Obama and was wondering why people don't choose him.
A good portion of the people I've talked to like Kucinich too, but evidently the handful I know are not representative of the democratic population or the democratic political machine has pretty much already decided who it's nominee for president will be. I think the latter is the situation at hand.
So, Mrs. Clinton gets the most campaign money, so that makes her the best candidate for the presidency? Our system sucks if that's so and it appears to be the case. So much for democracy.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/25/2007 @ 4:41pm
Gee Mask, I didn't realize your take on the campaign and election process is so inordinately simplistic and adolescent. You must really believe the system is fine and that everyone gets an equal whack at the ball. Never mind that it's about war chests of millions, media contacts and unfair coverage, and that basically we are in a one party system beneficial to big business. Frankly, Dennis would be unable to lead given the systemic exclusion of all things not prioritized by business interests. It would be like directing schools of fish from the belly of a great white shark.
Kucinich, other progressives, and those willing in the black democratic caucus should leave the democratic party. I think we would have content in the political discourse and actions. Real campaign finance reform would one of the first actions to help change the process.
Posted by steve foster at 10/25/2007 @ 4:50pm
Sorry, but despite him being right on Iraq and Iran....Dennis is not being "silenced"....he's being ignored....and NOT by "the Media" or "Democratic power brokers"...
but by Democratic primary voters!
Posted by MASK
Has a primary been held yet?
Posted by mtspence05 at 10/25/2007 @ 5:49pm
Has a primary been held yet?
Posted by MTSPENCE05
No, but the voters of the primary states are being polled, every hour, on the hour.......
Posted by davebarlett at 10/25/2007 @ 7:45pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/25/2007 @ 5:49pm
You think the polling is false? You turning into PONTIFICUS?
Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 10:00pm
Again, WOLFGANG, FOSTER....what did Howard Dean have that Dennis doesn't? And why did Dean get ATLEAST in the running against the name brands (Kerry, Gephardt, etc.)...and why can't Kucinich?
Posted by Mask at 10/25/2007 @ 10:02pm
Mask is correct. I am cold sober and Mask is correct. Americans are willing dupes to big daddy Bush's lies. It is easy to convince the public that they have to do the wrong thing.
Posted by conshame at 10/25/2007 @ 10:31pm
Willing and Eager dupes.
Nightclubs are full of young innocent women, who will willingly get picked up and seduced as long as they have a plausible excuse that "it wasn't their fault - it just happened".
America is full of silly people who will willingly support a war as long as they are able to pretend it wasn't their fault. "We were lied to". If the lies were blatant, "we can't be blamed because we're dumb and innocent".
Americans who get duped by Bush are worse than Bush - at least Bush is making some money off his lies. Americans who fall for it have no excuse whatsoever apart from their carefully cultivated ignorance.
Posted by conshame at 10/25/2007 @ 10:40pm
Mask is correct. I am cold sober and Mask is correct. Americans are willing dupes to big daddy Bush's lies. It is easy to convince the public that they have to do the wrong thing.
Posted by CONSHAME 10/25/2007 @ 10:31pm
I think we are all partially right. I believe you are correct when you say that a good portion of Americans will buy into whatever crap the media puts forth.
For example, there are now rumors floating around that AQ is responsible for the fires in CA and some people are already buying into that without a shred of evidence. Keep in mind that AQ likes a lot of bang for their buck meaning that they like to have a lot of dead and maimed people and carnage for the news cameras which this fire didn't really produce. But, AQ has been nothing but good news for the Bush administrations push for continuous war. AQ = boogie man and the public buys it. AQ is no more a threat to the U.S. as a country as Belarus, but they'd have us think otherwise.
Anyway, back to the Kucinich situtation. He doesn't get near the air time that Hillary or Obama get because he doesn't have the campaign financing they have to pay for that air time.
So, you have to ask yourself, where do these finanaces come from? Oh, that's right, big corporations donate heavily to both sides so they can be thought of as friends from democrats or republicans, so whoever wins the election, the elected official owes some favors to said corporations.
Kucinich doesn't have that war chest because he's not for sale, so he can't buy the air time that Hillary and Obama get. He doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning. It's as simple as that.
So, you are correct when you say that the American people are simplistic and gullible and will vote for whatever they see the most. And the rest of us are correct when we say that corporate America decides who we get to see the most.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/26/2007 @ 07:00am
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 10/25/2007 @ 7:45pm
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZ
(Cripes, what a nightmare I was having. Someone connected his keyboard to his bowels and it was this hideous drip-drip-drip of you-know-what directly onto a blog ...)
Posted by John_Shaft at 10/26/2007 @ 08:47am
My own explanation for Kucinich's low impact is that money talks, but not much of it talks for Kucinich. But perhaps our court jesters at "theonion.com" have it right. Kucinich fails because he's not providing his audience with enough "bullshit." Check out this video:
www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/26/2007 @ 08:48am
Posted by MADLIB 10/26/2007 @ 02:19am
MAD, Ron Paul has raised what? Five, six million. How much free air-time has CNN given him?
Okay...now why can't Dennis?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 09:32am
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Kucinich? Is he a running mate to Edwards? Are they running for anything?zzzzzzzzz
Posted by JoMa at 10/26/2007 @ 09:34am
You think the polling is false? You turning into PONTIFICUS?
Posted by MASK
I didn't say that. I only asked a question.
Posted by mtspence05 at 10/26/2007 @ 09:44am
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 10/26/2007 @ 08:48am
That was a riot. It also has American politics nailed to the core.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/26/2007 @ 09:45am
The media is full of neo-conservative, Zionist, and evangelical propaganda on behalf of war with Iran. It is time for Americans to say no. We have a criminal president and a do-nothing Congress. Something must be done.
Posted by torquemada at 10/26/2007 @ 09:51am
No, but the voters of the primary states are being polled, every hour, on the hour.......
Posted by DAVEBARLETT
Okay, let's say you and mary are right, spot on. I can't help but think of the exit polls in the last presidential election.
Posted by mtspence05 at 10/26/2007 @ 10:11am
Americans are still the willing dupes of any war-monger who tells them that we need to attack a tiny little country that hasn't attacked us. If you put an Authority figure on TV, saying it's a fact that Iran is smuggling weapons into Iraq, we have secret evidence but we just can't share it because it would expose (the lack of) intelligence sources, how many Americans are going to see what they don't want to see, which is the truth?
Posted by conshame at 10/26/2007 @ 10:12am
Iran has done nothing. There is no secret evidence. Consider the source.
Posted by conshame at 10/26/2007 @ 10:13am
Vladimir Putin spoke the truth the other day when he called George Bush "a madman running around with a razor blade". Are Republicans going to censure Putin for telling it like it is?
WHEN, is a prominent authority going to CALL GEORGE BUSHS LIES ABOUT IRAN TEH OBVIOUS LIES that they are? The Democrats have embarrassed me for the last time. Fucck the Democrats - fucck that liar Ralph Nader who said Gore is only a hair's legnth less bad than Bush. But, Fucck the Democrats, they can't prevent George Bushs next holocaust, they won't even call a lie a lie. There is no "secret evidence that they can't share" of Iran doing anything. The only evidence they have is the evidence they cooked up - just like all the times they supposedly found the WMD and then later it turned out they hadn't.
Posted by conshame at 10/26/2007 @ 10:18am
I encourage those throwing their vote away on Ralph Nader to consider the Natural Law Party. The Natural Law Party is THE ONLY party that can face up to the Republicans, won't take shhit, and won't knuckle under.
Posted by conshame at 10/26/2007 @ 10:22am
Q: How do you get four married with children "family values" Republicans to sit on a barstool?
Posted by John_Shaft at 10/26/2007 @ 10:54am
A: Turn the barstool upside down. Then place the stool in the airport men's room stall with the promise that LARRY CRAIG himself will also be reaching in with his hand for "tiolet paper" and with his wide, foot-tap stance.
However, before one tries this little gag for laughs, one must be very careful about the staying out of the path of the mob stampede of carefully groomed "family values" married men toward the men's room door.
Posted by John_Shaft at 10/26/2007 @ 10:59am
I didn't say that. I only asked a question.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/26/2007 @ 09:44am
True, you rarely if ever "say" anything. So....DO you think that Dennis' polling is misleading and he DOES have more than a 1-3% support level among Democrats?
and if not, what does--
Has a primary been held yet?----Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/25/2007 @ 5:49pm
mean? That he WILL win a primary? Or just more MASK-induced knee-jerkism?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 11:17am
I can't help but think of the exit polls in the last presidential election.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/26/2007 @ 10:11am
Again...he's not "saying anything"...just "thinking".
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 11:18am
I thank you for this strong piece in favor of the policy making ability of Dennis Kucinich. In my circles I have noticed that the first response is he is not electable. When I explain how logically he is running and therefore is a choice he is electable, they reluctantly agree. When I speak of how he stands on the issues, there is a warming. When I show them a speech or debate clip, they become supporters. We want our candidate to win, whomever they are and when the media determines front runners even before they enter the race, such as the case with Hillary, this forms the public's own opinions. When the network news doesn't mention his name, people without internet access or cable television don't have a chance to find out about Dennis Kucinich. Spreading information is what the media is supposed to do and the media plays a large part during elections. That responsibility shouldn't be taken lightly.
I thank you for this piece once again.
Posted by Modern Muser at 10/26/2007 @ 11:38am
mean? That he WILL win a primary? Or just more MASK-induced knee-jerkism?
Posted by MASK
No, just discrediting the fraud mary, that's all. This is The Nation, not some "I've got my head up my sorry, libertarian ass" web site. You're as doctrinaire as any Marxist-Leninist and I'm afraid anyone not familiar with your bs might mistake you for some sort of pragmatist (because you try very hard to appear as some sort of non-partisan, reasonable person).
And once again, what the hell have you added to the discussion other than condescending remarks and support for the status quo?
Posted by mtspence05 at 10/26/2007 @ 11:45am
In my circles I have noticed that the first response is he is not electable.-----Posted by MODERN MUSER 10/26/2007 @ 11:38am
Question for Kucinich people----I thought it was Dennis "not getting as much air-time as Hillary, Obama, Edwards"? How is it that MODERN's friends have judged him unelectable?
And before you answer "The Media and the DNC have TOLD them that"...careful. Because that means that you just called the majority (99-97%) of Democrats/liberals, etc. ..."sheep"!
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 1:00pm
No, just discrediting the fraud mary, that's all.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/26/2007 @ 11:45am
What fraud did you "discredit", Empty? The polling showing Kucinich in the 1-3% range?
How exactly did you "do" that?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 1:01pm
What fraud did you "discredit", Empty? The polling showing Kucinich in the 1-3% range?
How exactly did you "do" that?
Posted by MASK
Sorry, but despite him being right on Iraq and Iran....Dennis is not being "silenced"....he's being ignored....and NOT by "the Media" or "Democratic power brokers"...
but by Democratic primary voters!
Posted by MASK
Status quo supporter, as if it's all fair, square, there's no manipulation of the process...
Posted by mtspence05 at 10/26/2007 @ 1:20pm
I'd like to make some points here : There is something absurd about the pretense that Israel stands as some kind of guardian against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East when it is the only place in that region that has them. Other countries have the right to defend themselves, especially ones concerned about Israeli aggression. The double standard that Israel believes it should have the right to nuclear weapons without having to answer to anyone, including the US and the UN, for their 'security' damages not only the US but Israel as well. The premise that no one else should also be allowed that right ,even though it would also be for 'security', from Israeli aggression is ridiculous and smacks of AIPAC/Israeli/neocon rhetoric.
In addition - first - the US media is kowtowing to the neocons. We in the US NEVER get the full story about the middle-east, god forbid anyone would question what part Israel has to play in the plan for Iran. Does the media emphasize that there is no documentation that supports this nuclear menace ? That Iran is 5 years away from nuclear capability ? If the Iranian army is by definition a 'terrorist' group then so is the US and Israeli armies.
Second - It is not in the US's interest to go after Iran, but it has everything to do with "protecting" Israel. Israel has wanted to go after Iran for years now but settled for Iraq first per Bush who thought they could get in and out and then get into Iran.
Third - the warmongering for Iran is in Israel's best interest,not ours, and is being pushed on Capitol hill by AIPAC and ADL like crazy. AIPAC runs congress and the Foreign Relations Commitee and everyone knows it. If anything against Israel is said then they trot out the 'ol "anti-semite" rhetoric, a smokescreen to shut down any debate or conversation about Israeli policies. Does anyone mention how fanatically racist they are toward the Palestinians ?
Fourth - read 'The Israeli Lobby' by Mearshiemer and Walt and 'Deliberate Deceptions' by former Congressman Paul Findlay. Both eye openers debunking the rhetoric from Israel and AIPAC versus facts and more facts.
Fifth - Our House and Senate need to make it crystal clear to Bush/Cheney/Rice/Gates/Israel/AIPAC - NO! WE NOT LET YOU DRAG US INTO ANOTHER WAR IN IRAN. PERIOD. END THE WAR IN IRAQ. NOW. PERIOD.
Posted by Betz55 at 10/26/2007 @ 1:58pm
Er, speaking of polls:
CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007. N=1,143 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV = registered voters
"Is your opinion of Al Gore favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Al Gore yet to have an opinion?"
Date____________Favorable__Not Favorable__Undecided__Haven't Heard__Refused
10/12-16/07 RV______46__________29__________16__________8__________1
Hillary Clinton
10/12-16/07 RV______43__________41__________15__________1__________0
Barack Obama
10/12-16/07 RV______38__________24__________26_________11__________1
Rudolph Giuliani
10/12-16/07 RV______35__________27__________29__________8__________1
John McCain
10/12-16/07 RV______27__________28__________28_________16__________1
Mitt Romney
10/12-16/07 RV______13__________22__________22_________41__________2
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 2:12pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/26/2007 @ 1:20pm
Empty, again, what did you "prove"?
Polls taken about the Democratic primaries are taken of likely voters in the primaries who are registered Democrats...i.e. "Democratic primary voters".
Those polls show Kucinich in the 1-3% range among those people.
So again, what did "Has a primary been held yet?"----Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/25/2007 @ 5:49pm or ANY of your subsequent posts offer to "disprove" that "fraud"?
(Shall I get you a new hand-shovel, so you can keep digging with BOTH hands?)
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 2:13pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/26/2007 @ 2:12pm
Here, Empty, HSUB will help....Hsub, post one of your Democratic primary voters' polls (with Gore in it of course) and show us where Dennis Kucinich places?
BTW, HSUB, you think Dennis can take the nomination from Gore?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 2:16pm
Sorry, this is less confusing:
CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007. N=1,143 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV = registered voters
"Is your opinion of _____________ favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about _____________ yet to have an opinion?"
Date____________Favorable__Not Favorable__Undecided__Haven't Heard__Refused
Al Gore
10/12-16/07 RV______46__________29__________16__________8__________1
Hillary Clinton
10/12-16/07 RV______43__________41__________15__________1__________0
Barack Obama
10/12-16/07 RV______38__________24__________26_________11__________1
Rudolph Giuliani
10/12-16/07 RV______35__________27__________29__________8__________1
John McCain
10/12-16/07 RV______27__________28__________28_________16__________1
Mitt Romney
10/12-16/07 RV______13__________22__________22_________41__________2
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 2:18pm
Among DEMOCRATS....Dennis is NOT their leading choice for President. (Polling at 1-3%)
it all depends on how you phrase the polling questions, mask. for instance, if there was a question:
"who do you want to become president?"
as opposed to:
"who do you think will become presidency?"
what are the numbers on kucinich for the former question, as opposed to the latter, which is where i assume this 1-3% number came from?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 2:23pm
the vast majority of "liberals" i speak to all want kucinich, but are voting for someone else because they feel that kucinich doesn't have a chance.
this is a very serious problem when people jockey for the victory, rather than focus on the race itself. at this point, it's anyone's race, but the media and special interests are pushing very, very hard to narrow the field to one or two people.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 2:25pm
AL GORE AND THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
Although he has not declared his candidacy, this poll indicates that were he to enter the race, Al Gore could be a serious contender. Near the end of this questionnaire, his name was added to a short list of candidates vying for the nomination. He came in second among Democratic primary voters at 32% – just five points behind Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama trailed behind them in third place with 16% percent.
DEMOCRATIC CHOICE FOR THE NOMINATION
(Among Democratic primary voters)
Clinton 37%
Gore 32
Obama 16
Edwards 7
Gore took support from all the major candidates.
In the first horserace question, which did not explicitly offer Gore as a choice, 2% of Democratic Primary voters volunteered Gore's name.
46% of registered voters view Al Gore favorably, his highest rating since October, 2000.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/102507_newspoll.pdf
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 2:31pm
(Shall I get you a new hand-shovel, so you can keep digging with BOTH hands?)
Posted by MASK
Why don't you grow a pair, instead?
Posted by mtspence05 at 10/26/2007 @ 3:20pm
So again, what did "Has a primary been held yet?"----Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/25/2007 @ 5:49pm or ANY of your subsequent posts offer to "disprove" that "fraud"?
(Shall I get you a new hand-shovel, so you can keep digging with BOTH hands?)
Posted by MARY
I asked a question, mary, that's all.
Posted by mtspence05 at 10/26/2007 @ 3:21pm
In my circles I have noticed that the first response is he is not electable.-----Posted by MODERN MUSER 10/26/2007 @ 11:38am
Question for Kucinich people----I thought it was Dennis "not getting as much air-time as Hillary, Obama, Edwards"? How is it that MODERN's friends have judged him unelectable?
And before you answer "The Media and the DNC have TOLD them that"...careful. Because that means that you just called the majority (99-97%) of Democrats/liberals, etc. ..."sheep"!
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person
Hmm, Mask, at first glance I would take notice of Mr. Muser's presence on this web site. Then I might recognize the tremendous likehood of 'The Nation' magazine being off radar for a general populace reflexively conditioned to primarily and almost exclusively associate the 'Nation' with commercialized, iconographic imagery representing famous corporate brands, such as Coke or McDonalds, etc. (Recall, during our most heightened moment of domestic nationalsim, post september 11, the president implored Americans to defeat the evil terrorists by going shopping). In other words, Muser's circle is likely to be a small segment from within the 30-50 percent of Americans who actually chose to participate in domestic politics. And most of the political junkies acquire their substanitive political information from sources outside mainstream coporate media, so I would say that this does nothing for your point.
Big money donors follow the politically docile and subservient. If you don't accept that basic logic, follow the voting records and language used during campaigns.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/26/2007 @ 3:24pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2007 @ 2:25pm
You're right about liberals liking Kucinich:
Total Votes: 93765 as of Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:14:30 -0400
Candidate _________ Votes ___ Percentage
Al Gore (write in) ___25613 ____27.32%
Dennis Kucinich_____21931 ____23.39%
Barack Obama _____17847 ____19.03%
John Edwards ______14591 ____15.56%
Bill Richardson ______5353 _____5.71%
Hillary Clinton_______4257 _____4.54%
Other _____________1780 _____1.9%
Joe Biden ___________958 _____1.02%
Mike Gravel _________778 _____0.83%
Christopher Dodd ____ 657 _____0.7%
VOTING IS STILL OPEN!! Polls close at midnight on November 5th, 2007. Cast your vote now at http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/PulsePoll
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 3:28pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2007 @ 2:23pm
Okay, DD....find the "Who do you WANT to be President?" Poll. Even if Kucinich wins it, it's meaningless due what you said in your next post---- "the vast majority of "liberals" i speak to all want kucinich, but are voting for someone else because they feel that kucinich doesn't have a chance."
The argument has been that somehow Dennis has been "shut out" or "not given enough exposure"...seems if the people you speak with KNOW Dennis, and don't think he has a chance...shoots a big ol' hole in THAT theory, huh?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 3:36pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/26/2007 @ 3:20pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/26/2007 @ 3:21pm
Did one of THOSE two posts "discredit the fraud", Empty SPENCE?
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 3:37pm
OUST, again, you're merely asking us to accept that the majority of DEMOCRATS (remember whose primaries we're talking about) are "stupid" or "ignorant"...and that's why they're not supporting Kucinich.
Accept that, if you want...it still refutes the idea that Dennis "could win if only he got more air-time or the DNC wasn't trying to squelch him!"
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 3:40pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/26/2007 @ 3:28pm
And HSUB helped as well with his online poll (and we ALL, well not HSUB of course, know how reliable "online polls" are)...
If Dennis is KNOWN on the Blogosphere...then he's not being silenced or whatever by Big Media or the DNC...is he? So why is he polling 1-3% in normal accurate polls?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 3:42pm
Did one of THOSE two posts "discredit the fraud", Empty SPENCE?
LOL!
Posted by MASK
Has a primary been held yet?
Posted by mtspence05 at 10/26/2007 @ 4:29pm
And HSUB helped as well with his online poll (and we ALL, well not HSUB of course, know how reliable "online polls" are)...
If Dennis is KNOWN on the Blogosphere...then he's not being silenced or whatever by Big Media or the DNC...is he? So why is he polling 1-3% in normal accurate polls?
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 3:42pm
And why are so many, 32%, voting, in normally accurate polls, for a man that hasn't declared he's even running-- 'yet'?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 4:42pm
mask, see the poll posted by HSUB above. you are, again, wrong on all counts.
what more proof do we need that:
a) kucinich is the preferred candidate
b) kucinich has been largely removed from the national political discourse
there is simply no debating either of the above.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 4:56pm
a) is opposed by b) above.....
liberals want him, but the right wing has brought the left further and further to the center (see clinton, lieberman, feinstein, et al)
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 4:57pm
Two questions---
1. "However in the case of Ron Paul specifically, he's a bit more of a rabble rouser, and just by that procures a larger amount of attention than somebody as reserved as Dennis."
So Dennis is "reserved" and not a "rabble rouser"? Have you WATCHED the same debates as me? He's not spewing saliva or rending his garments, but he's hardly a stoic reciter of dull statistics.
2. "I like Kucinich. I think he's much better suited to be president than The Bitch or The Minstrel."----Posted by MADLIB 10/26/2007 @ 4:02pm
"Minstral"?....sorry, did you just compare Barack Obama with a "minstral act"? Do you KNOW what that is???
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 4:59pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/26/2007 @ 4:42pm
HSUB, it wasn't about Gore.....we'll deal with that next Thursday when you go full-bore into your "write-in" campaign fantasy (with no apologies, BTW).
Discussing Kucinich here. (see below to DD)
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 5:00pm
b) kucinich has been largely removed from the national political there is simply no debating either of the above.
Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2007 @ 4:56pm
Sure there is....how many debates has he been in? Did he get to answer ANY questions, or just stand there and watch Hillary, Obama, and Edwards talk.
Also....HSUB's poll was an online poll. You're smarter than that, DARLA. How MANY times do you think HSUB voted in it???
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 5:02pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 10/26/2007 @ 4:29pm
Oh my God, Empty's denser-than-a-black-hole brain just created a Tipler Cyclinder and he's gone back in time to YESTERDAY!!!!! (MTSPENCE05 10/25/2007 @ 5:49pm)
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 5:03pm
Sure there is....how many debates has he been in? Did he get to answer ANY questions, or just stand there and watch Hillary, Obama, and Edwards talk.
Also....HSUB's poll was an online poll. You're smarter than that, DARLA. How MANY times do you think HSUB voted in it???
this is an incredibly weak defense: as for your first point, since when are the televised debates the only manifestation of the national political discourse surrounding the presidential campaign? last time i checked, there were a myriad of media outlets through which candidates are able to express their point of view and increase their visibility. last i checked, kucinich was the POOREST within the presidential field, and considering that 97% of all congressional and presidential elections are won by the candidate who spent the most money, and considering that funding is almost always the central issue within the campagin, we can certainly put 2 and 2 together to determine that kucinich is, without doubt, getting shafted by the media simply virtue of his relative poverty.
as for your second point, what's your point?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 5:14pm
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 5:00pm
It was a rhetorical question as I know you wouldn't have a clue.
And pulling stuff out of your ass won't 'pass' as a clue...
Bwwaaahahahahahahah.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 5:15pm
Dick "Greeted As Liberators" Cheney
Hey John Nichols! I prefer Dick "Last Throes" Cheney... It's a bit catchier, IMO
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/26/2007 @ 5:19pm
Awesomily not pulling stuff out his ass:
http://tinyurl.com/2ku4tk
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 5:35pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2007 @ 5:14pm
DD, how did "the Media" prevent Dennis from raising as much money as similarly "ignored" candidate Ron Paul?
On Point #2....online polls are notoriously false, since participants can vote numerous times and that means the results reflect multiple listings for the SAME person. Again, notice HSUB won't answer the question "How MANY times did you vote?".
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 5:52pm
Frita, how many times did you vote?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 5:56pm
I've voted off and on about 20 times since '70's.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 6:05pm
Kucinich pulled out a miniature Stephen Colbert, who gleefully declared, "Vote for Dennis Kucinich!"
In closing, Colbert thanked Kucinich, but told him, "Congressman, that was absurd."
"I agree, Stephen. But as Miguel de Unamuno once said, ‘Only he who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible,'" Kucinich answered, using a quote he also carries with him.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 6:10pm
you know...i wonder if those who poll for 50 foot queenie are really going to actually vote in primaries...might be a good sign for non clintonites.
otherwise i swear i think a lot of people choose who they know best and thats hillery because she is the wife of the prez who got blowed...oh that poor woman! i think i'll vote for her!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2007 @ 6:26pm
Mask is 100% right. There isn't some nefarious conspiracy to silence Kucinich. He's being ignored by the voters which is causing him to be ingored by the media. It's not the other way around with the Media dictating the public's interest by ignoring Kucinish
oh, man. i nearly fell off my chair reading the above statement. did anyone, including myself, claim that there is a "nefarious conspiracy" to silence kucinich? NO!
fact: 97% of all american congressional and presidential elections are won by the candidate who spent the most money.
money is what gets you into the game, PERIOD. is there any disputing this? why do you think that campagin finance reform has become such an inredibly potent issue? because money is driving the election process, not ideas.
mary, you are so pathetically off in your analysis here. normally, i respect your views, but you really need to rethink this.
He has no change of being elected president. If the major networks dedicated 100% of the airtime to him for the next 15 months, he wouldn't crack 20% because the Conservative, the independents, and the DLC don't subscribe to the economic policies he's selling. That isn't going to change in the next 12 months.
this has absolutely no relevance in terms of what, and who, is driving coverage of the national political discourse surrounding the presidential election. in fact, your entire analysis is incredibly puerile, it's almost painful to read.
To Darla's point. Even if half of all liberals loved him, he couldn't get more vote than Ross Perot in a general election. That's why he only gets 1% - 2% in polls and the other 8% - 9% that like him vote for someone else because they know he's a wasted voted.
another completely irrelevant point: it doesn't matter who is going to win (nobody can know who is going to win at this point). a prediction is a prediction, a forecast is a forecast. mary, would you like to debate the statistics on forecasts and predictions? 97% of presidential elections are determined by MONEY in the bank.
what's driving the inanity of the discourse are those who reinforce the current paradigm of campaign financing by saying things like "kucinich doesn't have a chance". what does this statement even mean? that he shouldn't be allowed equal presence within the process?
i'd like somebody to sincerely refute the claim that objective reality (i.e. the presidential race) is not immune from our critical presence as observers.
does mary want to talk about sound economic policy? well, then, how did bush get elect if his policies were so sound?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 6:47pm
how can voters know what they want, or who they want, when coverage of candidates is driven by said candidates contributions to the very system which preserves and expands their power?
kucinich may not be perfect, but he does effectively criticize said system. it isn't even necessary to debate whether he'd be a good president. we already HAVE a president right now. let's just talk about ideas, shall we?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 6:51pm
That's why he only gets 1% - 2% in polls and the other 8% - 9% that like him vote for someone else because they know he's a wasted voted.
the only wasted vote is the vote that isn't cast, in which case, that non-vote goes to the winner.
if someone votes, and that vote is counted, how is this wasted?
mary, grow up.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 6:52pm
i really can't stand these so-called "straight shooters" like marybretbard. they feel that they actually have the capacity, as a critical observer, to distance themselves from reality just enough so as to be completely "objective". everything science tells us is that this is simply impossible.
for instance, what if 1 million fed up americans got off their asses and pro-actively supported kucinich's campaign in the next 3 months, by making placard, placing phone calls, sending e-mails, staging rallies, making videos, films, writing op-eds, etc?
what if, suddenly, kucinich climbed to the top of the polls?
no one, and i repeat NO ONE, can make the sorts of objective claims that mary has made.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 6:57pm
here's another ridiculous and unsupported claim:
the rockies will come back to win the world series
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 6:58pm
listen to this seminar on forecasting, and you'll see why i'm right:
http://media.longnow.org/seminars/salt-020070126-tetlock/salt-020070126- tetlock-web.mp3
events, like presidential elections, cannot be wholly determined in advance
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 7:01pm
You guys need to understand the math better. 40% of the electorate self identifies as Conservative; 20% of the electorate self identifies as Liberal...
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/26/2007 @ 6:12pm
PEW paints a slightly different picture:
"... almost six-in-ten Americans fall into one of the four ideological groups; 18% are liberals, 15% are conservatives, 16% are populists, and 9% are libertarians. The remainder included people with a mixture of views, or who declined to offer opinions on several of the six questions in the test; this large non-ideological group (42%) is labeled the "ambivalents.
...
There is a close, but not perfect, correspondence between ideology and partisanship for conservatives and liberals. Conservatives favor the Republican Party (71% identify with or lean toward the GOP), while liberals favor the Democrats (82% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party).
Not surprisingly, libertarians and populists fit much more uneasily into the two major political parties. Both groups tend to favor the GOP, but are much more evenly divided between the two parties than are either liberals or conservatives. Of all of the groups, ambivalents are the most evenly divided between the parties (46% favor the Republicans and 42% favor the Democrats), and the most likely to eschew affiliation with either party (12% say they are independent, affiliate with a third party, or have no partisan preference)."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america
*********
And then there's Gallup and CNN:
VOTE BY IDEOLOGY
______________TOTAL__Democrat__Republican
Liberal ________(20%)_____87%______11%
Moderate ______(47%)_____60%______38%
Conservative ___(32%)_____20%______78%
"It's immediately apparent from the Gallup poll that "liberal" and "conservative" remain the best known terms to describe a person's political ideology. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said they were "very familiar" with the word "conservative" in a political context; 58 percent said they were "very familiar" with the term "liberal". Just eight percent of voters said they were either "not too familiar" or "not familiar at all" with the term "conservative," while 10 percent said the same about the word "liberal."
Other terms regularly used within the political debate were less familiar to the Gallup sample. Just 22 percent described themselves as "very familiar" with the word "progressive," 20 percent called themselves "very familiar" with "libertarian" and a mere 12 percent said they knew the term "populist" well.
...
Even in the national exit poll conducted in this year's midterms, just 20 percent of the sample identified themselves as "liberals" -- twelve percent fewer than called themselves "conservatives." Self-identifying moderates made up nearly half -- 47 percent -- of the sample. (In the Gallup survey, 53 percent said the term "moderate" applied to them while 40 percent said it did not.) When asked their party identification, however, 38 percent said Democrat compared to 36 percent who said Republican and 26 percent who called themselves independents. That means that many Democrats no longer see themselves as liberals and choose to identify their ideology as moderate or even conservative while still retaining their Democratic party affiliation."
http://tinyurl.com/3awsam
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/26/2007 @ 7:14pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/26/2007 @ 6:05pm
How many times did you vote...on that online poll, HSUB?
or are you trying to be funny? (crazy people rarely are, despite what they had Dr. Lector do)
BTW, in what form will your "I was wrong" come on Thursday? Let me guess...
"Okay, I was wrong, Gore isn't announcing...he's going to be a write-in candidate and sweep both Hillary and Romney off the stage!!!!" (4 exclamations minimum)?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 8:46pm
Finally, to the Kucinich people...a thought experiment.
Just a hypothetical, strictly free-thinking out in the thin air...
Can you even CONSIDER that, despite being right on some issues, that Dennis Kucinich, due to no fault of the Media or the Democratic "power brokers"...
isn't popular with Democratic voters by simple virtue of his stance on issues?
Is that even within the realm of your imagination...at all?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 8:48pm
Darla, for somebody complaining about how sure somebody is of them self, you're sure doing a good job of doing the exact same thing
the only thing i am certain about is doubt. as far as kucinich's ability to attract voters, i am in doubt, just as i am in doubt about clinton's ability to attract voters. all knowledge is suspect.
Can you even CONSIDER that, despite being right on some issues, that Dennis Kucinich, due to no fault of the Media or the Democratic "power brokers"...
isn't popular with Democratic voters by simple virtue of his stance on issues?
Is that even within the realm of your imagination...at all?
of course it is possible, but some polls show kucinich is closer to people's ideology than clinton. now, the question of "electability", which is an absurd one in an of itself, is different, and that's what i've been trying to point out. but that isn't the issue here.
the issue is: if voters were to vote their conscience, and not electability, then kucinich would be getting much higher numbers.
any educated liberal knows that hillary is just plain scary, whereas kucinich has obviously timid or mild relations with powerful corporate interests. nader has the same problem. dean was one of the first candidates in my lifetime to bridge the gap between nader and clinton, but he failed because the country was so clearly swayed by stupidity and fear.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2007 @ 9:23pm
Kucinich is right on about a lot of things, and maybe in an ideal world, he would get a shot. I give him credit for standing and saying what he feels he needs to say, and I think he's legitimate. Too bad there's reality. The world and everything in it spins around what is under the ground in the middle east, and the those who have an interest in maintaining the power structure will spin it as they wish in the media and donate to those who will defend their position in public office (some like Bill Clinton will slickly ram NAFTA down our throats and somehow get called populist, and others like Bush will simply say to hell with you, I'll do what I want). So we'll find a way to get war with Iran and an oil dictatorship called a democracy in Iraq, we'll get shitty environmental policy and ignore global warming, shit healthcare, shit education...and we'll ride this hunk of junk right into the ground while we have a few drinks after a day at the office and discuss how fat Brittany Spears looked on her comeback debut. That being said, I'm glad he's out there stating the obvious. At least that way we can't pretend we didn't know better when we do exactly what we know we're going to do in the end.
"we didn't read the invite, we just danced at out own wake, all our favorites were playing so we could shake, shake, shake!!" Isaac Brock.
Posted by rzs at 10/26/2007 @ 9:23pm
the issue is: if voters were to vote their conscience, and not electability, then kucinich would be getting much higher numbers.----Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2007 @ 9:23pm
Okay, DARLA, fair enuf. But, again, honestly...would Dennis (in your scenario) get the HIGHEST number...or would Edwards, Obama, maybe...maybe even Hillary still beat him among ALL Democrats?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2007 @ 10:00pm
Mask - The answer to your question is simple. Kucinich is a weiner. He's got good politics, but no one wants a dork at the helm.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/26/2007 @ 11:25pm
Posted by MASK 10/26/2007 @ 8:46pm
Meds must be messing with your reading ability again. I answered the question and you didn't, your turn-- how many times did you vote?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2007 @ 12:14am
"We all stand in awe of the depth of your..."
Congressman Lantos, speaking to Secretary Candi Rice. He did complete the sentence with "authoritarian idiocy". He did not complete the sentence with "dishonesty".
George Bush is doing everything he possibly can to start a war with Iran. Candi Rice is doing what she can to help him. Candi Ryce is in the Congress, telling the Congressman that George Bush isn't trying to start a war with Iran.
Where is the Democrat that will put Candi Rice in the same place as the liar Alberto Gonzales. Candi Rice is as Guilty as Gonzales. Candi Rice is as guilty of promoting torture as Gonzales. Candi Rice is as guilty of helping the corrupt expand their influence, as Gonzales.
Congressmen and Senators ganged up on Gonzales, yelled at him, told it almost like it is to his face. Why are you scared of a little bad publicity? The Democrats are failing Americans. Americans want this authoritarian slide stopped.
Posted by conshame at 10/27/2007 @ 01:00am
Anyone who defends Candi Rice, is more ignorant than Candi Rice, more immoral than Candi Rice, and more harmful than Candi Rice.
Posted by conshame at 10/27/2007 @ 01:01am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/27/2007 @ 12:14am
Actually HSUB, I "voted" two days ago.
See, I'm on the Zogby Interactive polling list. Every couple weeks they send me a link via e-mail. Mostly on whatever issue is in the news, plus who I voted for in 2004 and who'll I'll vote for in 2008 (plus the usual demographics info).
They sent me on on the 24th and I responded.
BTW, guess WHO was the subject of a few questions? A former Vice-President and Nobel Prize winner.
Can't wait to see the results!
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2007 @ 09:00am
Yeah Zogby hasn't done a poll on Gore for a few months. They must be reading the tea leaves like the rest of us:
Donna Brazile, who earlier in the year said Gore will NOT run is singing a different tune now:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/oct/24/its-all-up-to-gore/
Donna Brazile, Gore's 2000 Campaign Manager says "It's all up to Gore".
Posted October 24th, 2007 by P. Edward Murray
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2007 @ 10:27am
Posted by MASK 10/27/2007 @ 09:00am
"Zogby has assembled a database of individuals who have registered to take part in online polls through solicitations on the company's Web site, as well as other Web sites...Zogby has taken strenuous efforts to ensure its Interactive panel is as representative as possible...Interactive Polls are supplemented by phone polls when needed. This is done to ensure proper demographic representation, especially among hard to reach groups...15% of the company's U.S. database of online-poll participants are "regulars," who take part in half of the interactive polls the company conducts...Likely voters in each of the 25 states..."
I short, it's snake oil. Self-selection biases only one of many problems with their sample. Zogby does some good work - but their interactive arm is shakey at best.
http://interactive.zogby.com/index.cfm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2007 @ 11:55am
MAD, Ron Paul has raised what? Five, six million. How much free air-time has CNN given him?
Okay...now why can't Dennis?
I think it is Dennis's socialist leanings that scare the big-business controlled mainstream press, just like they are scared of Ron Paul's "abolish the IRS and the FBI" radical conservatism.
The mainstream press has never liked "radicals", even though Kucinich is right on the money on Iran.
Many Democrats I have talked to (myself included) would support Kucinich but support Obama as the closest surrogate. Unlike Hillary, Obama did NOT vote for the Iran war initiative sponsored by Lieberman (AIPAC).
Obama understands that this is 2002-2003 all over again, in which AIPAC is simply going down their list (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia) of Middle East countries they want to weaken and destabilize so Israel can beat their chest and proclaim they are "the superpower of the Middle East".
The politics of this is really that sick!
Posted by Metteyya at 10/27/2007 @ 12:15pm
Unlike Hillary, Obama did NOT vote for the Iran war initiative sponsored by Lieberman (AIPAC).
obama didn't vote. period. he didn't show up, and he missed the vote on iran.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 12:31pm
obama didn't vote. period. he didn't show up, and he missed the vote on iran.
Darladoon,
I guess you missed my post on the other Iran thread. Here it is again:
Mask,
With a 70+ vote in favor already wrapped up in the Senate for the Lieberman resolution, what would be the point of coming to the Senate and voting against it, especially when he is running for president and activities in New Hampshire would appear to have higher priority?
Also, why piss off wealthy Jews who run AIPAC, especially during an election cycle? That doesn't seem very smart if you are trying to raise as much money as you can, right?
Do you think Obama has learned anything from the former Illinois Senator Percy who openly fought against AIPAC? In the Senate, they call it being "Percycized" if you vote against or openly oppose AIPAC initiatives, in which AIPAC turned its wealthy Jewish donors on poor Senator Percy by supporting his opponent, and guess what happened to Senator Percy? Well, Percy is no longer a Senator from Illinois, so I'm sure you can figure the rest out.
Openly opposing AIPAC on the Senate floor is just as stupid as VOTING FOR their one-sided, selfish, short-sighted, and irresponsible initiatives that fleece the US taxpayer, make Israel and the world LESS secure, and completely destabilize, oppress and impoverish Muslim nations in the Middle East.
Posted by METTEYYA 10/26/2007 @ 8:24pm
Posted by Metteyya at 10/27/2007 @ 12:43pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/27/2007 @ 11:55am
SRJ...simple question.
Is an online poll at DFA more, equal, or of less accuracy than Zogby's interactive?
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2007 @ 1:07pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/27/2007 @ 10:27am
Well, let's wait and see, HSUB. The poll was only 3 days ago.
Oh speaking of "three days"......
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2007 @ 1:08pm
DARLA....don't tell METTEYA you're Jewish!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2007 @ 1:29pm
Posted by MASK 10/27/2007 @ 1:07pm
Accuracy is not a word you can apply to either. Zogby tries to pretend that they are adjusting for problems in the methodology but the end result is both are not statistically valid.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2007 @ 1:41pm
DARLA....don't tell METTEYA you're Jewish!
The vast majority of Jews in America, like the vast majority of Americans, OPPOSE the Iraq war (72%) and OPPOSE invading Iran (94%).
So this is not about being Jewish, since it is only a "very small" minority of right-wing wealthy Jews that support these AIPAC initiatives such as the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran.
The only reason these small numbers of right-wing wealthy Jews succeed is because of the corrupt nature of American government, in which those who can organize large sums of money for political campaigns determine US legislation rather than the majority-will of the US voter.
America is a lot of things, but it ain't a democracy, not even close!
Posted by Metteyya at 10/27/2007 @ 2:00pm
in which those who can organize large sums of money for political campaigns determine US legislation rather than the majority-will of the US voter
97% of elections in this country are won by the person who spent the most money.......and just who has the money?
this is why i will never, ever join a political party. this is why i am not an "american," per se, nor want to be. this is why i do as much as possible to diminish the power of those who have it. and how do i do that? just do the opposite of what they tell me to do.
so i guess the only thing i really am is an anarchist.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 6:27pm
HA HA HA!
the only success story for us in iraq, the kurds...is disappearing! the turks are going in!
HA HA HA! NEOCONS...ABSOLUTE GENIUSES!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/27/2007 @ 6:52pm
97% of elections in this country are won by the person who spent the most money.......and just who has the money?
Certainly, when you have groups like AIPAC that are able to get their way despite SUPER majorities in the country and in the Jewish community opposing their initiatives, then the American political system has been thoroughly corrupted.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/27/2007 @ 8:31pm
when you have groups like AIPAC that are able to get their way despite SUPER majorities in the country and in the Jewish community opposing their initiatives, then the American political system has been thoroughly corrupted
and aipac is only one lobby out of innumerable lobbies. the problem goes much deeper: campaign contributions are the problem. period.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2007 @ 11:15pm
oh well...no civilization lasts forever...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/27/2007 @ 11:50pm
And who has the best shot at saving civilization, or you at least is saying they want to...
DEMOCRATIC CHOICE FOR THE NOMINATION (Among Democratic primary voters)
Clinton___37%
Gore_____32
Obama___16
Edwards___7
Gore took support from all the major candidates.
In the first horserace question, which did not explicitly offer Gore as a choice, 2% of Democratic
Primary voters volunteered Gore's name.
46% of registered voters view Al Gore favorably, his highest rating since October, 2000.
OPINION OF AL GORE (Among registered voters)
______________ Now ___ 6/2007___1/2007__10/2000
Favorable _______46% _____34% ____31% ____46%
Not favorable ____ 29_______40______49 ______35
Undecided/DK____ 24 ______ 25______20 ______17
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/102507_newspoll.pdf
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2007 @ 11:44am
day after day...the deadly stupidity of the neocon's foriegn policy becomes more and more obvious.
instead of hitting the islamic militants who attacked us with everything we had we made that a secondary consideration and...
embarked upon a lie encrusted, misguided, stupid scheme to get rid of israel's mid eastern enemies and turn the middle east into walmart freindly oil land...
in the process the truly dangerous religious fanatics who actually attacked us got away, established himself in PAKISTAN...A NUCLEAR ARMED NATION...AND NOW ISLAMIC REVOLUTION THREATENS TO ENGULF IT...
oh man...this is what happens when ignorant, incompetant, evil, ideologues get "elected" and proceed to implement their stupid, self enriching, fascist ideological policy!
JOKE'S ON US!
they laugh all the way to the bank. MAKIN A KILLIN!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/28/2007 @ 11:53am
"Kucinich vs. popularity", this question lies in the bottom of the tragedy of American politics. To get elected here, you MUST have some appeal to the people, some "mainstream hookup".
Let's look at the only three progressive individuals elected in half a century: Kennedy, Carter, Clinton (only four presidential terms combined!). Three basically blonde people, appealing to a relatively humble origin (except Kennedy), kind of the "guy next block", and somehow magnetic personalities, at least at the point of history when they got elected. Kennedy comes to be perhaps the only exception in history when a progressive liberal was elected on his own appeal without necessarily people believing "he is one of us". Kerry - a person that might be seen as close to Kennedy in some ways- was not perceived as having this magnetic personality.
This is proving to be the only way for Dems to beat the right. Not necessarily on ideological issues but on an "All American guy that wants to straighten old time politics - without too much ideological intrusion that will make Americans suspicious- to try bring a fresher and more just perspective, period." It is sad but it is a proven factor that American public does not vote on ideology but on "connecting themselves to the candidate", on feeling somekind of bond within them and the candidate. That was also the reason that I believed that the only Dem possibility was a southern candidate that shared most of the features of the three individuals cited. Unfortunately, Mr. Edwards has not risen to the opportunity, he has not presented himself with such magnetic, leader-like personality.
I think that Kucinich is a very good person and politician and almost always right in his positions. He is got one personal problem though, and a perception problem.
The personal problem: he does not believe too much on himself and his possibilities against the odds. He needs to rise against this and be much more aggresive in his campaigning. The first message of each candidate should be: "I am a real possibility, I am not running for popularity, or to be a good Vice-president choice".
The other is how people perceive him. Most people don't "get connected" with him. He is portrayed too much out of the mainstream, not a magnetic personality, tagged too much of a leftist... "not one of us". I DO NOT share these kind of opinions, I think though, this is what people think.
About Iran, Kucinich is right and the other three wrong. Only a combined fool+blind person can stumble on the same stone twice. I hope that the American people don't let themselves be cheated upon again.
Posted by Frank42 at 10/28/2007 @ 2:53pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/28/2007 @ 11:44am
And in TWO days....ol' Al announces!
(or begins a stealth write-in campaign...uh, right, HSUB?)
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2007 @ 8:22pm
IPSOS POLL: If Gore Runs, 44% Of Dems Would Vote for Him.
"If Al Gore announced his candidacy for President today, how much would this impact your decision?"
---DEMOCRATS polled said:
Would vote for Al Gore: 44%
(In a primary with 4-top tier candidates, Gore would win if he captured 44%)
Would vote for another Democratic candidate: 54%
Would vote for a Republican candidate: 3%
---INDEPENDENTS polled said:
Would vote for Al Gore: 33%
Would vote for another Democratic candidate: 29%
Would vote for a Republican candidate: 38%
---REPUBLICANS polled said:
Would vote for Al Gore: 5%
Would vote for another Democratic candidate: 4%
Would vote for a Republican candidate: 91%
http://tinyurl.com/2wkl7n
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/29/2007 @ 12:36am
Question for the Kucinich supporters here...for the benefit of HSUB...
if Gore got in the race...would you drop Dennis for him?
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 11:19am
Sorry, but despite him being right on Iraq and Iran....Dennis is not being "silenced"....he's being ignored....and NOT by "the Media" or "Democratic power brokers"...
but by Democratic primary voters!
Posted by MASK
Sorry, but it should be "his being right" not "him being right." It's good to get the grammar correct when making questionable statements.
I've seen Kucinich on George Stephanopolous, and he was lucid, passionate, articulate, and logical. He was also charismatic. Kucinich is painted by the MSM as being colorless and uninteresting. This was certainly not true the times I've seen him speak. It seems like just another framing operation.
I often wonder why Democratic candidates don't use the same kind of techniques that are known to work when selling products. Any entry level course in marketing will inform the student of the first step in reaching the target audience: create a need, even if one does not exist.
The Republicans have done this so successfully it's unbelievable that the Democrats have not adopted the practice too. It does not have to be immoral (as much of the Republican marketing is). The right has created a "need" for an anti-flag burning ammendment, in spite of the fact that flag burning is very rare and truly doesn't hurt anyone. Gay marriage should be a non-issue, but it's been a high voltage button pusher for several years. The same is true of putting the 10 commandments in public buildings. None of this is necessary for anyone's well-being, but people actually believe it matters in their personal lives due to marketing techniques. For example, when Lyle Westmoreland was on Colbert promoting his proposal for displaying the 10 commandments, he said that without them, people - especially young people - will lose their way. Yet he could not name more than three of the commandments even after much thought. (Obviously he actually has lost his way, so maybe he did have a point there, at least when it comes to him!) "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is a great example of generating a need where none exists.
In any case, candidates like Kucinich absolutely must find ways to create an overwhelming desire for universal health care, peace, job security, living wages, and all the other issues he espouses. But nothing will be accomplished by simply telling people what the candidates are in favor of. Getting up and saying, "All Americans have the right to quality, affordable health care" does not get anyone's attention. It might strike a chord with the choir, but it will not ignite a spark even with people who mostly agree but are not fired up already. Again, the first rule of marketing is to create a burning desire in people for the product. Then assure people that the candidate in question will fill the need. It's not impossible to do this, but it probably would take a marketing genius to do so.
Kucinich's product is valuable, and, in fact, really is needed, so it would not be unscrupulous to use the techniques that have been proven to work. However, I assume he or his "handlers" believe that honesty and forthright reason are more morally correct.
In addition, he really does have pointy ears and an elfin face along with his logical approach and reluctance to use emotions to rally the voters, so I believe one of the main problems is that America is just not ready for a Vulcan president. I hope I am wrong and he moves up in the polls as the other candidates prove over and over again that they most certainly do not reflect the views of most Americans.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/29/2007 @ 3:07pm
"I've seen Kucinich on George Stephanopolous..."----Posted by LEEANNG 10/29/2007 @ 3:07pm
Well, LEE, according to some of the posters here...that's impossible.
"This Week" is one of the most popular Sunday talk shows on a major TV network. I THOUGHT that the "MSM is not giving Kucinich air-time" and THAT's why he's not as popular as the others.
Also, notice that you TOO go with the "He's not good looking enough" argument ("Vulcan"?...more hobbitish, I'd say). Of course, wouldn't that have meant that Gore should have beaten Dukakis in 1988? Al was cuter....heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2007 @ 3:39pm