If you have taken the test, you know, the one that helps you match your ideals to a presidential candidate, many, many progressives, including myself, found that Dennis Kucinich was their candidate. But, he is not a media darling, barely rating any serious mention by the media outlets and political wonks. And more disturbingly, because he is not a “media darling,” the idea of electability has shadowed his campaign from beginning once again.
At the same time, many progressives do not want a Hillary presidency, for numerous reasons, including because it would be “more of the same.” This is definitely not what progressives want.
Yesterday, I read another defeatist take on how Kucinich supporters can change the direction the media has placed on a Hillary front-running campaign. The thing is, most of the same points used to support Kucinich voters to change their votes to another candidate are the same points why Kucinich supporters should remain Kucinich supporters.
So if Kucinich can’t win, supporting him in the key early races means valuing a symbolic educational campaign over one that has the capacity to actually affect who is nominated.
I think Kucinich people can make a difference, and that the tradeoffs are worth it to support Edwards or Obama.Right now Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all running virtually neck-and-neck in the Iowa polls. Any of them could win. Any could come in third. In the latest averages, they’re within five percentage points of each other, between 25% & 30%. Whatever the outcome, it’s going to set the tone for subsequent momentum, media coverage, money, and everything else that makes such a critical difference in who wins. Because the primary and caucus schedule is so compressed, and quite possibly over by mid-February, whoever emerges from those first few primaries with major momentum will likely be the nominee.
So how could Kucinich supporters, with their candidate polling at 1%-2%, even make a difference? First, because it’s a caucus system, this favors groups that are organized and enthusiastic. Only 125,000 people attended Iowa’s Democratic caucuses last round, but they sank Howard Dean’s candidacy when he was the clear favorite going in. If Kucinich supporters could get out 12,500 people that’s 10% of the vote, if 6250, 5%. Neither would be enough to qualify under the 15% threshold for representation, but if they could account for even just a few points difference in how the delegates are allocated, that might shift who comes first among the three leading Democrats. It might make the difference between Hillary being the nominee and Edwards or Obama.
Let me stop here and point out that the polls show Hillary as being the most polarizing candidate should she win the democratic nomination. We would, should these polls hold any water, have a redux of 2000 and 2004. And seriously, this is NOT something I want to see again. I want to see a CLEAR decision in favor of a progressive democrat.
It also matters that both Edwards and Obama also beat the Republican candidates in most major polls.
Now, I do not want to start the election process by devaluing (meaning vote in the primaries) my vote for someone I cannot completely support. Loeb points out, Kucinich supporters have two choices, 1. to continue to support Kucinich, or 2. support Obama or Edwards.
My problem with these choices is that the second choice, which Loeb supports, puts electability over issues, and I have railed against voting for electability over issues.
Thus, according to Loeb, if progressives follow choice 2 and support Edwards or Obama in the caucuses and primaries, progressives can take the lead in this country.
Except, I think this is hooey. It is a defeatist attitude, and ignores the actual process.
To tie this all together and show why the reasons Kucinich supporters should continue to support their candidate, and this is most important, Loeb does neglect (and found in comments to his post) that even if democratic caucus voters do vote for Kucinich and he doesn’t have that great of a showing, they have a second choice, which can be used towards Edwards or Obama.
In order for a particular group to be viable, they must have a certain percentage of the all the caucus participants. If they don’t have enough people, the group disbands, and its members go to another group.
And secondly, at the national convention (which would pertain to primary voters), Kucinich himself can urge delegates to support another candidate, which would most likely be Edwards, as he did in 2004.
Thus, I will say it again, issues should trump electability, and Kucinich supporters should not have to hold their noses while casting their votes in the caucuses or primaries.
I’m so torn on this issue. I dig Kucinich, but I also am so torn about who can beat a Repub.
I agree with you. The electability issue is troubling to me, and I admit, that is what has made me go stark raving mad this election.
It’s maddening. Just maddening. And I also realize that’s what I keep juggling.
Good post. I must now go and ponder.
Did I say maddening?
The only way you can waste your vote in the primaries is by failing to vote for the candidate who best represents your positions on the issues most important to you. If you believe that Dennis Kucinich would be the best President for America, then make your vote count! Make sure you vote in your primaries! The American political process will take its course, and you will have to decide in November of 2008 where to cast that final vote.
My state has a caucus. That means I don’t have to roll the dice on a winner takes all single vote. First round, I intend to support Me. Kucinich. Once it becomes clear he won’t be getting any delegates, I will support Mr. Edwards. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I agree with more of what he has going on than with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama combined.
The party needs to know that the grass roots supports Mr. Kucinich’s ideas.
I have always supported Dennis and will not abandon him now. (TN420 has endorsed Dennis already)
He’s the best person for the job by far and away. There is no other choice for me until Dennis releases us to vote for another. If that other is Edwards, which I believe it will be, I’m just fine with that too. John Edwards will make a fine leader.
But that’s where it stops for me and the Democratic party. The party needs an enema, badly. Electing a Clinton is absurd to the point that even having an election at all will be useless. If I’m not voting for radical change, I’m not voting.
The only candidates that will instigate the major changes we need for our democracy to survive are Kucinich and Edwards.
If we nominate any other, I will have given my last dollar and last effort to the Democratic party.
It’s crunch time. Don’t drop the ball, Dems.
captain I absolutely agree ith your assessment of the dem party. But, what really bugs me about the “leadership” is that they are not and have not been listening to the people. They have maligned their party with elitism, and in so doing, have created the appearance to the people, that there is no difference between dems and rethugs.
Thus, I am a progressive independent that votes for the people that most reflects my own views and desires — and in the case of general elections, I’ll hold my nose while voting for a dem in too many cases (ie Kerry and Harold Ford).
But, I also have to say that I’m beginning to question (again as I had done in 2000) the effectiveness of nose-holding-while-voting-dem, and I wonder if this is the best thing to do for the direction of our nation anymore.
That’s the deal, arch. Your apprehension is well placed.
For those that might not understand….
Say the worst case scenario transpires and Hillary is the Dem nominee and McCain is the Repig nominee.
…you and I hold our nose and vote Dem…
Whoever wins:
1) We will remain at war.
2) We will remain the subjects of corporate fascist rule.
3) We will have old-blood insiders that will not make any significant changes.
4) We will not feed the hungry, house the homeless, uplift the poor nor rescue the middle class.
5) We will be lied to with every breath.
That’s blood I don’t want on my hands.
I never voted for a Bush, I never voted for a Clinton. My hands are clean. I intend to keep them that way.
Either we vote for real change (not the Hillary/Obama “changespeak”), or there’s literally no reason to be involved in the process.
I have given, and toiled, and smeared and scratched and received death threats on behalf of the Democratic party. They have one more chance to do right or I be gone. The time for real change is now and a new America is within reach. If we settle for average we fail, as the progressive movement will be set back decades.
Slight differences in candidates are no longer good enough. The difference must be extreme because if it’s not, the consequences will be.
Kucinich and Edwards are the only saving grace we have.
Regards, my friend.
I was just reading that Kucinich has asked his supporters, if he doesn’t have enough, to back Obama in the second round of the caucus.
Rachel, I just woke up and heard that on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. I’ll have to go see what his reasoning is, but that just does not make any sense to me. Obama is just not as progressive as Edwards. This scares me, in a way, as it has the feeling that Kucinich is heavily leaning on electability over issues with this choice.
Captain, you articulated, so well, what I have been trying to get out through my fingers. We have something in common, I have not voted for a Bush or a Clinton, either.
[...] let’s make this clear. Kucinich supporters at the caucus have two votes, if you remember the discussion from the other day, and it is for the second vote, for caucus goers, that should use their vote for Obama. Democratic [...]
[...] to put a democrat in the WH this fall, assuming the nominee is not Hillary Clinton, who, as I have noted before, is the most polarizing democratic candidate for the presidential [...]
[...] The Crone Speaks: Electability over issues, and Voter turnout is the big [...]