What explains these self-contradictions in the DU world-view?

[RichM]

Clinton and the War

Here are two pieces of data:

1) According to a recent poll here on DU, 60+% of DUers still have a firmly positive opinion of Bill Clinton.

2) It is clear to anyone who's spent much time here that 90+% of DUers oppose the Iraq War, & that almost everyone realizes that the war is one of the overriding issues of our time.

Yet Clinton has not been an opponent of the Iraq war, & Hillary voted for the IWR (one may reasonably assume she talked this over with Bill). How are the above 2 bits of data to be reconciled? If Clinton is so wonderful, & the Iraq War is so significant an issue, why hasn't Bill demonstrated the slightest bit of opposition to it?

====================================

Attitude towards the Dennis Kucinich candidacy

1) On Oct 1, a DU poll showed that 52% of DUers - more than triple the percentage of his next-closest competitor - felt that DK voices the best set of ideas of all the Dem candidates. (The poll question was "Which candidate do you prefer, based PURELY on positions & ideas?")

2) Yet all DU polls for "Who do you support" show Clark & Dean well in the lead. DK doesn't usually come in better than 4th or 5th in these polls, and threads commonly appear here urging that DK should drop out of the race.

Question: How is one to interpret the relationship between these 2 bits of data? Of course, the obvious answer is that people here want to win, & think that DK has no chance, while Clark & Dean have a chance.

But I'm asking my question on a different level. What I'm asking is, what does it say about a community of political opinion, that people are so willing to abandon the candidate that they themselves acknowledge has the best ideas? Or, stated differently: why are people so unwilling to fight for the guy they think has the best ideas? This disconnect between "electable" and "good ideas" says something about the community that willingly tolerates the disconnect. What do you suppose that "something" is?

[BurtWorm]

1. Realism.

Mixed with pessimism for the short-term, mild optimism for the long-term.

[Selwynn]

69. ...or cowardice.

That's the beautiful thing about "realism" - it is a self-fufilling prophecy. You garuntee that this shitty world stays exactly the same or gets worse..

[RichM]

71. That's right. Here's an example -

One type of remark I very frequently see on DU begins like this: "Like it or not, the reality is ...."

This invariably prefaces a statement that, for example, a candidate must be tall & handsome to win an election. Or that he must be a southerner, & have a nice smile. Etc.

People who announce that they are "just being realistic" are to a very considerable extent making excuses for accepting the very most contemptible things about our society. As a society, we are most sorely lacking idealism today -- not pragmatism. And the Democratic Party is most grievously lacking courage and conviction - not willingness to "compromise." It already "compromises" -- out of weakness & desperation, not out of strength.

[Iverson]

72. Like it or not ...

... compromise out of weakness and desperation is realistic. We may not be able to sway enough swing voters with ABB, so our fallback position should be changing a portion of Bush's mind.

Besides, you can't just demand 100% of your agenda.

;-)

[BurtWorm]

85. Poor Kucinich loyalists...

hoping to make everyone else in the world feel guilty for not being Kucinich loyalists.

;-)

[BurtWorm]

84. I totally agree that the DP is lacking courage and conviction

by and large. Although the Dems from my neck of the woods are extremely satisfying in that regard, all the way up to the House of Reps (Charlie Rangel is my Rep).

Unfortunately, my neck of the woods is just one of many. How many congressional districts would keep sending Charlie Rangel to the House?

You don't have to compromise ideals and general goals in the way a broken seal compromises the safety of perishables in a market. But if you don't compromise--in the sense of settling differences--you don't build coalitions. In this half-left-half-right political reality, coalitions are absolutely essential for advancing progressive agendas.

[BurtWorm]

82. If idealism remains floating in the realm of ideals

the net effect is the same. Or worse.

[info being]

2. Because we don't own the media

Maybe people here are just being realistic. If the media wanted DK to win, its done. The minute they take him and his ideas seriously, he'd win. But they won't and he won't.

I think its just hard to always be on the losing side...speaking from experience.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Pragmatism....

I'll go even further.... If Gore or Clinton were prosecuting these wars they would be enjoying alot more support from Dems than *....

Clinton used the military option several times during his tenure without the hue and cry...

[ramapo]

4. So

Clinton scores high because his tenure was such a better time for our country. So we look back fondly and that's reflected in the poll. He also gets a lot of sympathy because he had the crap beaten out of him from Day 1.

Clinton was, of course, so much better than the current Resident. But I could list of number of areas where he was a big disappointment.

Ex-Presidents usually don't indulge much in bashing their successors so don't expect much from Bill even if he feels Bush screwed this up big time.

Hillary has nothing to do with much of anything. She needs to be busy being NY Senator so that she can get reelected.

As far as DK. I like what he says, I like him. He'll never be elected but is an important candidate as he raises issues that would otherwise be left.

[Cornus]

5. Boils down to...

...being realistic. In my idealistic days I would have been a firm supporter of DK and fought for what he stands for. However, as old age has been setting in I find that I'm losing much of that idealism I had in my younger days. As much as I like DK and his platform, I recognize the fact that he has the proverbial snowball's chance of winning the nomination, much less the election.

Since the goal is ABB that's the reason I've decided to support Clark. I feel that he is the only candidate who has the ability to draw from the many Independents and moderate Republicans who are also fed up with * and his idiotic policies.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. Clinton beat Republicans at their own game--people like a winner

People want that. Clinton is far too conservative for my tastes, but I sure do smile every time I think about him overcoming 10 years of professional hatred and character assasination. You could iterate lots of bad stuff about Clinton and I'd have no choice but to agree with you. But his oratory is second-to-none, and he had a way of giving people hope, whether it was partially bs or not. He had a way of making me think that the world really was coming together as a global village, that things were getting better, that everyone could eat and have a house. Sure, it's a far cry from reality, but I definitely responded to that.

One person's view.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Spot On....

Clinton reminded me of Robert Duval's character in The Apostle sans the violence....

The proverbial "bad boy"....

[knowledgeispower]

30. I'll second that

The Dems were in fucking awful shape (in Presidential elections anyhow) before Clinton came along. He made them viable again. We probably wouldn't even be worrying about who the nominee would be right now if it weren't for Clinton, because that nominee would just be the next sheep to go out for the slaughter. Say what you want about the man, but he made the Dems a viable force in today's political landscape.

[Kinkistyle]

74. Ex-Presidents not supposed to talk smack.

There's an unwritten rule that states that ex-presidents are not supposed to really criticize (and in general support) the president in office. Thats why he has Al Gore do the bashing. Gore gave some scathing speeches denouncing Shrub's idiocy on the lead-up to the war.

The second thing we need to keep in mind is that Clinton is the consummate politician. He tries to play to all the sides. Do I really believe for a second that he agrees with the Southern Baptist's message on gays and women? (Even though he claims to be a devout Baptist and churchgoer). Hell No! He pandered because he had to. Sometimes you need to pick and choose your battles. In the end, I think he turned out to be a pretty decent president (and person) all things considering.

[Nederland]

7. Everybody loves a winner

Bill Clinton is a winner.

Dennis Kucinich is a loser.

That's pretty much it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. That Wasn't Nice

NT

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. Why would you call Kucinich a loser?

Please define what you mean by loser. I take offense to your one-sentence dismissal of Dennis Kucinich. He's anything but a loser, and I'd like you to please explain why you said that.

[Blue_Chill]

15. At the white house level it's true

Clinton is a winner and DK has no chance in hell. It's a ugly reality but it's the only one we got.

[Bandit]

33. Dennis Kucinich is a loser.

Maybe you could go into some depth. What political races has he lost and by what margins? Or are you just talking out your ass?

[Nederland]

42. Ok

He lost re-election to George Voinovich in a landslide.

He is last in the money race, raising less money than anyone save Carol Moseley Braun.

He is last in the polls, frequently polling half of what Al Sharpton polls and 1/20th of what Dean polls.

[Mairead]

50. Check your facts.

[Nederland]

73. I did

[mandyky]

8. Comments on both issues

On the Clintons, although I still think well of them, my opinion has gone down, esp. over the war.

On Dennis K. - I agree with him idealistically, but realistically I do not believe he would even be allowed to do half of what he says he'd do as President. No way he could run this country by Executive Order. Plus with him, I get an uneasy feeling - a gut instinct, and I am unsure why, but I trust my gut.

[RandomKoolzip]

10. You can have a favorable opinion of someone

without agreeing with them 100%. I still ahve a favorable opinion of Clinton, and I vehemently oppose the war in Iraq, just as I have a favorable opinion of my friends, some of whom are republicans, some of whom were for the war, and some of whom I will never see eye to eye with politically.

As for the disconnect between Kucinich's electability and his ideals, I think we're just being realistic. As much as I love the guy, I hafta say that his chances of being elected president of the United States are as good as those of him becoming President of Uranus. And yes, that says something less than positive about the community of voters, and yes, that's the way it's been for two hundred years. Debs didn't win either, and he had one of the greatest platforms evr, and I'm sure a lot of people supported him. It's just common sense to appeal to the mainstream to get votes....and unfortunately, Kucinich's opinions and policies strike most voters as "too left." That's indeed a shame, but that's the way it goes. It's enough for me that Kucinich is in the race at all and letting his voice and viewpoints get heard by middle America.

[welshTerrier2]

11. struggling with Kucinich

i've been struggling with Kucinich for many months now ... your question is a killer for me because I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with my current thinking on Kucinich ...

here's the dilemma ...

first, Kucinich is far and away the candidate closest to my positions on the issues ... I'm really considering leaving the democratic party (to go Green) because of all the wishy-washy attitudes the party seems to convey about the war ... there's just no excuse for continuing to support this madness ... more than 75% of democratic senators voted to continue bush's little occupation ... so, on ideas, Kucinich is the man ...

for some time, i've considered endorsing and working for him ... but, and here's the part i'm not so comfortable about, the guy gives off some weird vibes ... his speeches at the debates seem to "reach a little too high", a little beyond where he's really at ... he speaks the words of a "dreamer who dares to dream" but it just doesn't feel right coming from him ... maybe this is just an absurd intangible quality that shouldn't carry any weight ...

it's not about whether he could win or lose ... I think it's more a feeling that there's a disconnect between the message and the messenger ... I guess I'm worried that he couldn't actually deliver the goods ...

if someone wants to attack my position as nonsense, don't expect me to put up much of a defense ... I'm not sure you would be wrong ... but, you asked, and this is where I'm currently at ...

and as for the Clintons' support of the war, don't get me started ...

[RichM]

21. Re: "a disconnect between the message and the messenger..."

Yes, I feel this too, at the debates. My interpretation of this is that the debates are just not a format that Dennis handles too well. I'm solidly behind him, but if I'd ONLY seen him at the debates, I doubt that I'd understand what he represents, or that I'd even feel much interest in him.

My support for him stems from reading things he's written -- like his "Prayer for America" in early 2002. I've also seen him in person 4 times in the last year -- and of these times, he was pretty great the last 2 times. He was a hell of a lot better in person (when he was the undisputed center of attention), than he was in any of the debates (when he has to fight to get 90 seconds of speaking time).

Some people - like Sharpton - are dazzlingly well-suited to the debate format. Sharpton, it might be argued, looks "better than he really is," in that format. Dennis, it might similarly be argued, looks worse than really is.

[Egnever]

45. Spot on!

Some people - like Sharpton - are dazzlingly well-suited to the debate format. Sharpton, it might be argued, looks "better than he really is," in that format. Dennis, it might similarly be argued, looks worse than really is.

couldnt agree more

[roughsatori]

14. Your points are symptomatic of the enervated state of the Dems

That lack of vitality will be explained by: "We just want to win," "We are pragmatists," "The media is to blame." The problem is that defeatist approach does not, and will not, work for the Democratic (or any) party.

You answer your own question with a question: "why are people so unwilling to fight for the guy they think has the best ideas?"

Change it to an assertion and you have the answer:

The majority of Democrats are afraid to fight for the person they think has the best ideas.

The sad thing is we will all admit it--then justify it with the dubious defense of pragmatism, lose the election, then do the same thing again.

[BurtWorm]

18. What do you mean by "work?"

How will getting behind DK, for example, or the Greens "work?"

[roughsatori]

23. "work" means "gets elected"

it also means our Representatives vote to block Bills, and pass Bills that best reflect the progressive nature (as opposed to reflecting collaborationist tendencies) of the Democratic party.

I am a Democrat, have never voted Green. But I MAY this election, depends on the nominee. Lately, I have been wondering if it is possible to change my affiliation even before the election. This is clearly not a party for me anymore.

I don't mean this to be a smart Alec, but do you really mean it when you ask: How will getting behind DK work? (Isn't that how a nominee wins? by the most of us getting behind them (voting and campaigning for them).

[BurtWorm]

26. Do you think that if there was a sudden groundswell of support for DK

on DU that that would translate out into the Democratic Party at large? I'm pessimistic about that. There's a strong tension between realism and idealism in our party, moreso than with the Republicans, and it's probably because Republicans are much more sheeplike or robotic than we are. Their moderates and reactionaries all snap into line when the leadership calls them to. Everything is for the good of the party. Democrats are much more driven to appeal to the widest swath, which means they have to tolerate more diversity of opinion among their constituents.

[Mairead]

52. "would DU support for DK translate out into the Democratic Party at large?

Sure. IFF our support was expressed in work. If we all put in the work, his at-large support would go up like a rocket: slow at first, and then faster and faster and faster.

It's not for nothing that a majority of DUers plus even the reporters who're sabotaging him think he's got the best goods in the parcel!

[BurtWorm]

68. The best goods in the parcel? You mean the purest ideology?

I agree he has the purest ideology. I don't think that translates to the best goods in the parcel, because I don't believe people need purists to represent them. They need human beings. Not to say DK isn't a human being, but he presents himself as a saint.

[Mairead]

86. No, I don't mean the purest ideology

Just take his healthcare proposal. That's 100% pragmatic: cheap, truly universal, and simple to explain and to implement.

And as for your charge that 'he presents himself as a saint', how about an illustrative cite for that claim?

[Mairead]

51. That's my sense of it too: DU reflects the same Dem spinelessness

...that everyone loves to criticise in the politicians. The politicians sold us out during Coup2000, they sold us out on the 'Patriot' Act, they arse-creeped Smirk on the invasion and Gephardt is the only one not now trying to re-write history. We cannot count on them to do anything on our behalf--that's why we're always so amazed if any of them do, but we only moan when they don't.

Spineless Dems at DU, spineless Dem politicians, big GOP victories. Of course, the ones here who need to see that connection most clearly will be the ones who cannot see it at all, and loudly too.

[BurtWorm]

77. I admire your loyalty to your candidate.

He doesn't inspire the same passion in me. None of them do, frankly. The passion I feel most strongly is one to rid the world of an empowered George W. Bush and Co. I like what Kucinich says he stands for, mostly. He seems like a decent guy. But I don't see him sparking passion in anyone but the left. I don't see how up front total retreat from Iraq--which I personally believe in--is going to sell to anyone outside the left. Can you help me with that? How is a Department of Peace going to sell when the US is at war and most Americans believe it's against "terror?"

[RichM]

81. Well, Burt, isn't the question there how much of the official framing of

the situation one is willing to accept?

IOW, the US is not really "at war;" quitting the attempted rape of Iraq is not really a "retreat;" and the grotesquely oversized US military is actually destroying the quality of American life, not "defending" it.

But people don't understand any of that. Should the approach of the so-called "political opposition" be to attempt to explain it all to them, or should it be to acquiesce in allowing these hideous misrepresentations of the situation to stand?

If the idea that this is a "war against terror" is not challenged, it is going to stand. If the idea that the military is "protecting us" is not challenged, it is going to stand. If the "opposition" takes the attitude that the official version of these things is already accepted & can't be challenged, we've already lost. If the best the Democrats can do is say, "Well, we accept most of Bush's grounding assumptions, but we don't think his management has been correct in handling the specifics" -- that's already a defeat.

Kucinich is the one guy who will identify & challenge all Bush's underlying assumptions. If you've seen my other posts on this thread, I don't think he's all that good of a "messenger." But his message is different from the others. The framework of his philosophy is large enough to attack Bushism at its roots. The others are operating more at the level of quibbling about details.

Certainly, to sell a Department of Peace at a time like this is going to require a lot of explaining. However, to concede to Bush so many elements of his world-view (ie, that we are "at war with terror" etc) -- this is conceding far too much. If Democrats say, "Bush is right in much of his world view, but we can do a better job of managing the specifics" -- THAT is something that will never sell.

[BurtWorm]

87. Well said.

I didn't mean to collude in that world view by suggesting that the US is in a just war and it really is against terror. In my opinion, the situation in Iraq is war only insofar as a resisted occupation is not peace. And I don't believe "terror" is the enemy. The belated effect of Reaganist-Bushist foreign policy, I believe, is the enemy.

It's interesting that in your reply you used the phrase "people don't understand that." That's the crux of the problem you've set out for us, isn't it? How do we get sufficient numbers of people to understand what seems patently obvious to us to elect, not just a president but representatives to Congress who understand this and act responsibly on it, when there is a gigantic megalith of consensus reality, spun by the jerks from both parties in power now and propagated by the media, sitting in the way of disseminating the truth? How is this to be accomplished? Add every last DUer to DK's rank and file and how big a bounce will he get? (I don't know how you feel about Dean or Clark, who, like DK, AS and CMB, didn't dirty their hands on the IWR. I presume you're cool to them.) Enough to win a single primary? How many other voters would each DUer have to pull in for DK to make him viable? If not enough, what happens after DK loses?

I do agree with you that Bushism is a profound problem that can't be eradicated with noise, let alone inertia, both of which qualities may be all that the other candidates have to offer. But I do know that when it comes around to the general election, there better be one mean motherfucker of a contender ready to take what Rove dishes out and cram it back down Bush's throat. Pure pacifism will not do it. (By the way, I know DK is a lot scrappier than he looks and occasionally sounds. He could work on that if wants me to take him more seriously. A little humor would be nice, too.)

[SlavesandBulldozers]

16. give Clinton 2 hours with the UN

and you'd have an elite French counterterrorism task force in Baghdad in 45 minutes fighting alongside our troops. Youd have a German Special Forces contingent fighting alongside our troops. You'd have every free country in the world sending humanitarian support and military aid. He was an internationalist, and he understood why being an internationalist is important. The world loved him. Even George Bush's dad did a hell of a job as an internationalist during the Gulf War.
Now what do you we have? We have a nation, half of whom are right wingers saying we dont need France, we don't need Germany. we dont need international aid or military assistance. Surely Hillary, when giving her approval for action against Iraq, assumed that Bush would be able to create some modicum of an alliance - she would have to assume that he could rely on his daddy's old pals to make everything go smooth. How wrong they all were.

On the second question, regarding tolerance of the disconnect between democratic principles and the support of Dennis Kucinich - Dems realize that the stakes are too high - and that it is their national duty to ensure someone else is elected other than Bush.

[Malva Zebrina]

17. Pretty deep philosophical question

do we choose to be existential, or do we abandon all that we know is beauty and truth and meaning inside ourselves to vote a vote that we must hold our nose for. Is there honor in voting for ideals, if only it is personal honor and integrity, or is there more honor in voting against a man who is decidedly evil and is surely taking this country down a dark, dank path? Do we abandon the comfortable, beautiful island we set up our little hermitage on and go with the tribe for the higher ideal-- the survival of the whole group? :shrug:

[camero]

19. The macho factor

Like Molly said, it's the fact that he looks too skinny. It's also the reason I couldn't win any political office myself. And I do support DK.

Today's GW political environment emphasizes looks over ideals, which is why you see Clark and Dean ahead in the polls. Clark for his medals and Dean for his big forarms. The type that could get in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished".

Dennis just doesn't fit the bill in the looks department for alot of voters. In this environment, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would never have been elected.

[KoKo]

20. Rich, why have so many Democrats in the House/Senate supported the War?

Clinton and the House/Senate? That's the real puzzlement to me. Why was Bush given his "Blank Check" and all the money he wanted for continuing the War? Why?

If the Democrats in House/Senate had block voted that the part of the 86 Billion that wasn't for the troops would be a Loan instead of a Grant, it would have made a Statment! A huge statement.

This is the problem. How will people see that our party is different from the Repugs on International Affairs, when in fact they don't seem to be different. They gave him EVERYTHING! What's left?

On Kucinich. I gave him a donation just as I did with Dean. I hoped he would stay in the Debates. I think it would be hard for him to be the candidate, because he appears too far left. But, that's also why it's good he stayed in.
He doesn't have the ability to get the Moderate Dems and Repugs to support him. That's why I think he doesn't have a chance.

[RichM]

25. I don't think it's a mystery. My take is that...

first, it's no accident that Dem support for the war & the $87 billion was a lot stronger in the Senate than in the House. The Senate is higher in the power-hierarchy, & more firmly aligned with society's ruling circles -- virtually ALL of whom support the war.

Generally, this behavior is completely in line with tradition. Contrary to popular myth, it's just not the case that Democrats are an "anti-war" party. The US has had many, many "foreign interventions." Almost all of them have been scandalously unjust. The Democrats have supported all of them. (Can you think of a counter-example? I can't, offhand.)

I think there's a great deal of truth spoken by the raw vote tallies from the $87 billion. To wit: 98% of Republicans were behind it. 75% of Dem senators, & 42% of Dem congressmen were also behind it. So there you have it: the Dems are "less evil," but not impressively so. And they are less "less evil" in the Senate than in the House.

[mike_c]

22. I must be in the 40 percent that doesn't deify Clinton....

On balance, the Clinton years were good for America, but there were MANY aspects of the Big Dog's policies that I opposed, especially with regard to globalization and foreign policy.

I think the broader answer to your question is that support for Clinton is not necessarily monolithic. We can support his domestic agenda, for example, or even just parts of it, while excoriating his treatment of the Iraqis by refusing to lighten the burden of sanctions.

[knowledgeispower]

32. I don't "deify" Clinton either

But I am willing to give credit where it was due. The Democrats were coming off several HUGE defeats in Presidential elections (McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis) and seemed due for another one (remember how popular Poppy was just a year before the elections?) when Bill Clinton came along and gave the country an alternative. That alternative was better than Bush, but perhaps not as good as we might have liked. That is why I am left somewhere around liking Clinton but wishing he was more liberal.

[mike_c]

41. yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings as well....

eom

[Armstead]

24. Speaking as a believer in DK's ideas....

I don't think that is a "disconnect" that says anything really, beyond specific circumstances.

With Kucinich, it's kind of like if you have a football team, and a guy who is brilliant at the strategic side of the game, but can't throw a football to save his life. You don't want to make that guy your quarterback. You look for a position where he can devise strategy but doesn't have to rely on his weak points.

Kucinich is obviously very effective on a Congressional level and progressivbe leader and spokesman. But not as a presidential candidate.

He just doesn't have "it" that is necessery to carry that message to voters in the general election. Frankly, and I hate to say this, but is is also not doing a very good job of even carrying that message to Democrats.

I hate saying that. But I have watched the debates in rooms with otehr liberals who haven;t followed these things closely. They just have a visceral reaction to the way he projects.

So I wouldn't read too much into that.

[Terwilliger]

28. I have qualms about DK being a good president

but there is no other choice in the field...so what else should I do? Go Green?

[seventhson]

53. so you let BUSH stay instead of DK???

DK would be WORLDS Beter than Bush and his team of criminals and terrorists. Dennis has moral fiber and character.

I understand that we need a strong human being to undoi what the Bushzis have begot -- but Dennis - if he put a strong team together - could do it right.

[Terwilliger]

61. you must not read my posts much

Anyone (anything!) is better than George Bush, but that doesn't bestow ability.

As a person, I believe that DK could be a great president, but a president is more than a mid-level manager. He/She has to be a leader and convey strength, and be authoritative. I like DK a lot...LOVE him, in fact. But I don't necessarily think he commands a lot of respect. That's unfortunate, but not inaccurate.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. Because putting a Democrat face on the PNAC strategies is the priority

The same policies reworded and announced by more telegenic on-camera talent would offer a more comfortable kind of gratification than the upheaval of real change, even though people will admit that on one level they want change, as long as the status quo is not throwing them in the street or shooting at them (literally on both counts) it's a comfort zone question.

You will find that this view is less likely to those who have already been personally impacted by the status quo, and almost certain to be held by those with strong official party and/or governmental connections who have good possibilities for personal benefit if the status quo is implemented by their party.

[CWebster]

29. If it was about only the issues

We would've all voted for Nader.

Why didn't we?

[Mairead]

54. Don't be disingenuous.

"Third parties have no chance", that's why.

[booley]

31. These are hardly contradictory

even though I have had freepers flat out tell me that since Clinton supported the war, I must as well (which shows just how slavish freepers are when you get down to it..if thie leaders say it is so, it must be so. They don't even consider that you can diasagree with people some of the time)

I do have a positive opinion of Clinton. I certainly do especially when you compare him to Shrub (hell, if you are comparing people to Shrub, Nixon suddenly looks good!)

Clinton has done a lot I approve of and I think his heart was in the right place most of the time.

This is not to say I approve of everything Clinton did (NAFTA, COPA, DOMA and the whole rest of the alphabet)

But agreeing on one thing does not mean I must agree on al things. Thats silly.

This is not to say you are a freeper, btw. It's an honest question. But I get this from stupid freepers so often that the question has gotton annoying to me.

[corporalclegg9]

34. Good at Math? How about Expected Return...

Anyone who knows Expected Return may like this analysis...

Let's say you're playing the lotto and it costs you $1. Let's say you have a 99% of winning nothing, and a 1% chance of winning $50.

Mathematicians would say that your expected return is (99% of the time you lose $1) + (1% of the time you make $49 (remember, you still paid $1 to win $50)), or in other words (99% * -1) + (1% * .49), which is -.50. Thus, on average, you lose 50 cents everytime you play the lotto.

Taking this and applying politics...

Let's say that we could repeat this same exact election cycle 100 times assuming Dean is the candidate and 100 times assuming Kucinich is the candidate.

Let's also rate presidential performance from -10 to 10, -10 meaning the worst state of things you can imagine, 0 meaning nothing is getting better, nothing is getting worse, and 10 meaning we change our country and create a utopia.

Let's say that you're a Kucinich supporter, and taking into account his ability to work with Congress (knowing that many of his liberal platforms will be hard to push through) you give him a 5. Let's say that we also give Kucinich a (generous, I think) 20% chance of beating Bush.

Let's say that you evaluate Dean (who is more moderate), and you give him a 2. Let's say that you also give Dean a 50% chance of beating Bush.

Let's say that you evaluate Bush and give him a -6 (come on guys, bear with me, a -10 would be like nuclear holocaust).

Expected Return of 100 Kucinich vs. Bush matchups = (.8 * -6) + (.2 * 5) = -3.6

Expected Return of 100 Dean vs. Bush matchups = (.5 * 2) + (.5 * -6) = -2.0

Of course you can play with my numbers if you'd like, but the point is as follows:

Bush is SO bad that our expected return is increased MORE by increasing our chances of winning that by increasing the "quality" of our candidate, both of whom are relatively much better than Bush.

Let's say that Bush was NOT so bad. Let's say he's completely neutral and does nothing good or bad. He rates a 0.

Expected Return of 100 Kucinich vs. Bush matchups = (.8 * 0) + (.2 * 5) = 1.0

Expected Return of 100 Dean vs. Bush matchups = (.5 * 2) + (.5 * 0) = 1.0

#####

Okay, let me summarize, and if you don't like my math, just listen to my logic. If you're running against a nobody, a completely neutral guy who won't help or hurt anyone, it's more palatable to take a chance and support a guy with less chance of winning. This is because IF YOU LOSE, things aren't SO bad. They're just blah, whatever.

If you're running against someone who's victory would mean so many bad things, it's harder to take that chance and support a guy with less chance of winning because IF YOU LOSE, you're FREAKING SCREWED.

[RichM]

47. Admittedly, this is a very cute argument.

However, might there not be a second-order type of effect that is not captured by this model?

The point of Kucinich is that he is seriously willing to rock the boat -- to say things that no one dares to say, any more, in American politics. He is willing to talk about ideas that no one else is willing to talk about.

I don't immediately see how one could quantify the potential benefit of such a thing. But in trying to think about it, I'm reminded of college physics, where a certain type of calculation was intended to capture the "first-order effects" of the phenomenon under study. This yielded a rough type of answer. But then it was possible to add complexity to the model, & continue the calculation, to arrive at progressively better & better answers.

Not to beat the metaphor to death, but -- I believe having a straight-talker like DK in the race could have important positive effects, raising the entire level of the dialog, that are not really factored into your simple model. Who's to say, for example, how to weight the "expected winning" part of your model, compared with the weighting given to the "quality" part? Perhaps, in our current situation, the "expected winning" part should be weighted far, far less than the quality-of-ideas part.

[Mairead]

55. Nice model

You assume, however, a linear function. Supposing it's not linear. The 1932 election in Germany was not linear. On the 'good' side was more fairly non-destructive grasping-at-straws as the Weimar Republic tried to find its feet. On the other side was tens of millions of deaths and destroyed lives, unassessable misery, profiteering, waste of resources, and a world that isn't measurably better off for it. That's a very significant non-linearity.

[Eloriel]

35. If it were just about policies and "ideas,"

the candidates could just circulate copies of their "good ideas" and dispense with campaigning.

It's about far more than that. It's about leadership, charisma, personality, political instincts and savvy, etc.

I think DK has some good ideas. I also think he's got some completely UNDOABLE ideas. Impractical, unrealistic, maybe even flakey.

For all his good ideas, I wouldn't want to see him as "President." I simply don't think he's got the capacity to lead in that way.

Further, I personally don't like the man. There's just something about him that turns me off. It's ineffable, but it's there.

And frankly, I'm tired of these discussions.

Oh -- and your polls (or whoever's they were) aren't exactly scientific. Nor did I vote in them or probably even see them. As for Clinton, I'm sooooo over the Clinton's it's not EVEN funny. I've always said he was the only Republican I ever voted for. Nowadays I see him more as a traitor to the Party, and the people.

Eloriel

[Kanary]

36. On the other hand...

.... several progressive columnists have written that the only way the Democrats are going to pull out of their slump is to unashamedly and unabashedly *be* Progressive. The only pragmatic way the Democrats can make any inroads into the majority of voters is to strike out on their own and make some real noise, rather than continually being careful to stay in the wishy-washy middle, and not present a clear option. When Dems water down their position and message so much that they become bland, the voters yawn and switch the channel.

I want to know why the assertion of these columnists that, if they want to win, the Democrats must start clearly and unequivocably articulating an innovative position doesn't seem to be heard or get a response.

Please... I'd really like to hear some thoughts on this. Please...?

Kanary

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Given The Fact

that more Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal I find that assertion specious....


Maybe we should find ourselves a new electorate...

[Mairead]

57. Given the fact

that self-labeling on an undefined continuum is completely worthless except as an indication of what it's socially acceptable to say....

More people self-label as whatever they think 'conservative' means, BUT the opinions they express and policies they prefer are those we term 'liberal'...and even 'far left'!

[Terwilliger]

59. link? source?

method?

[Cocoa]

37. Clinton didn't invade Iraq

he was under tons of pressure to do so while he was president. The same PNACers that advised Bush advised Clinton, but Clinton did not go along.

What this means to me is that his expressing support for Bush does not mean he totally agrees with it, it means that he doesn't want to undermine the sitting president.

Same goes for the people that voted for the IWR. It's not a contradiction to vote for that law and then oppose the way Bush started and conducted the war.

[Beaker]

38. Just because someone has a firmly positive opinion of Bill Clinton

It doesn't mean that they have to be in lock-step agreement with everything he did.

[RichM]

39. Of course not. But Iraq is not just some little detail - it's a very, very

big deal. Does a political figure really deserve to be greatly admired, if they're dead wrong on perhaps the greatest issue of their time?

[Beaker]

58. Yes.

Although I'm not a very big fan of Bill's to begin with- He's always been too far to the right for my tastes. But- Iraq was nowhere near the "greatest issue" during Bill Clinton's tenure as President, and if people want to admire him for his presidency, Iraq is probably considered to be on the periphery.

[Iverson]

40. not as much of a disconnect as it seems

Clinton was special. This can mean any number of things, but most people accept it in one sense or another. He certainly was a skilled politician.

If the disconnect to which you refer was really a characteristic of DU, then we should expect to see it replicated pretty regularly. Somehow, I do not get the feeling that it is. The question about Clinton would become "why is he an exception?" I think that Clinton gets a lot of slack from this community because of the unceasing smears from an organized right wing machine over two terms. We identify with the persecuted, even when we do not agree on issues.

In the case of the Kucinich candidacy, you are discovering yet again that this community is sharply divided on how to ask questions. For many here, agreement on ideas is insufficient (and in some cases it seems that ideas are messy distractions). The disconnection, then, is really an epistemological difference of pragmatism versus idealism. It says that this community is searching for its soul, and that there is neither a final determination nor one remotely in sight.

[spindoctor]

43. Good observations

But then, I'm not crazy about the Clintons and a dedicated Kucinich supporter.

So don't look at me for the answers.

[Cat Atomic]

46. Good questions, RichM. I wish I could answer them. I can't understand

why anyone would walk away from the candidate they feel best supports their ideas when the election is A YEAR AWAY.

If you still feel that your first choice is unlectable next year, then I MIGHT understand going for second best. But this is the time to steer ALL candidates towards your IDEAL candidate. Support the one you honestly agree with.

If your second-best wants your vote, let them earn it. I'm supporting Kucinich, personally- I don't give a shit what the talking heads say.

As to Clinton, I can't even answer that one. I wasn't crazy about him. He was way too moderate for me, and I feel like he let the middle class down on some incredibly important issues, like NAFTA.

[leftofthedial]

48. non-media whores

Murkins

Face it. Murkins are stoooopid.

No rational explanation for it.

[imhotep]

49. COWARDICE

It is also proof that most DU'ers like most Americans beleive in nothing and will sell their soul at the drop of a hat. Also, The willingness of Du'ers to abandon ALL principles shows that politics is seen as nothing more than a game.

[RichM]

56. As is often the case...

imhotep has penetrated bluntly but accurately to the heart of the matter.

[Guaranteed]

60. Is it alright for me to just disagree with Kucinich?

Thanks. I DO appreciate it.

[boxster]

62. Look at the numbers. 144 votes out of 34k people doesn't mean much.

The DK poll got exactly 144 votes. 144 votes in an organization with 34000+ members is pretty meaningless. All that says to me is that the Dennis Kucinich voters just felt more compelled to vote in that poll than supporters of the other candidates.

Now, if we were to randomly poll DU members and the results were similar, then you'd have an argument.

[RichM]

63. DU actually has nowhere near 34k members. That number is just

the accumulated total of active accounts -- many of whom signed up a year ago, posted once or twice, & never returned.

Someone did a calculation last spring to estimate how many people "really" participate here with any meaningful regularity. I forget exactly what figure he came up with, but it was a lot closer to a thousand than to 30,000+. It might even have been under that.

If you look at the contributors to different threads, you'll see, after a while, that you recognize many of them. The community is really not that big. Even polls on the very most hot-button issues attract at most 300 or so total votes.

[boxster]

75. My point is - don't count on a poll with 144 contributors to mean much.

For a recent comparison, the current "unofficial" straw poll is at 456 votes and counting, so obviously more than 2/3 of the people voting in that poll didn't vote in your poll.

Interestingly, the number of people who voted for Kucinich in your poll and the total number of people who voted for him in the straw poll and the "who's your second choice" polls are roughly equivalent.

My point is that I don't think we can put much stock in a poll where only 144 people bothered to vote, in addition to the fact that it's a completely non-random poll. Using that as a basis for an argument such as this is speculative, at best.

Kucinich voters are probably the most loyal of supporters and are eager to show that support, arguably more than supporters of other candidates. Hence, his comparitively good showing in the DU "who would you vote for" polls.

[CWebster]

64. The messenger matters as much as the message.

It is about more than "he can't win" based on his political point on the compass.

Politics is about more than the issues, it is about how they are presented and who presents them. That is also a part of what the winning is. So, when someone says "Kucinich can't win" they may not be talking about his politics. They might be talking about Kucinich.

[RichM]

65. I understand this point. What bothers me, though, is that I see on DU

an almost total focus on the messenger, and a willingness to say "To hell with the message" altogether.

IOW (and I'm criticizing DU in general here, not you personally), I see here typical American-culture characteristics. DU has degenerated into a near-total preoccupation with candidate personalities, & an obsessive focus on the horse-race aspect of politics. There is constant discussion of who can kick whose ass, who "won" the most recent debate, etc. Serious discussion of the big picture is getting completely overlooked.

This decay into the superficial seems a symptom of a deeper malady, & it's something that people here do not want to face. They'd prefer to keep the discussion to the Clark-Dean equivalent of a "Tastes Great" vs "Less Filling!" commercial.

When a community fights harshly & stridently about trivia, & looks resolutely away from the deeper problems, something is really wrong.

[CWebster]

67. It is a serious fight, Rich

Not only is everyone anxious about promoting our best chance in the General, we are just as troubled an anxious about the future direction and status of our own Party. It is two-fold race to dominate the country and the party. It is a turning point, down to the wire and I would prefer to have some faith in both. Does it mean a compromise? Not if all aspects are weighed into the equation.

We are all probably coming at this with a belief that our own weighing of the issue would provide the best outcome. We all want what is best, we just disagree on what our best foot forward would be.

[welshTerrier2]

78. Nicely Said !!

you stated the essence of your argument much better here than in the base post ... i think your message got lost by using Kucinich as a vehicle to make your point ... the focus became the candidate (which is exactly what you're criticizing) rather than the shallow analysis frequently seen on DU ...

it may be true, as some have suggested, that intangibles such as campaign style, physical appearance, debate skills, campaign tactics and just plain old momentum are critically important ... there has to be some acknowledgement that winning does count ...

but I, like you, am very uncomfortable on DU these days ... I feel like I'm surrounded by far too many cheerleaders and, as you said, that way too much attention is being focussed on the "horse-race" ...

there will be a great price paid if we continue this nonsense ...

[RichM]

83. I agree, wT2.

I did make a mistake by using Kucinich in the base post, & the message did indeed get lost by what followed. (I even had people attacking the "invalid statistical methodology" of the DU polls I cited. That kind of thing is very far from what I was hoping to hear discussion on.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Putting ideas through Congress

DK constantly tells people that they need to elect a Democratic House and Senate if they want his ideas passed.

I don't know whether any other candidate is going around saying that.

Supporters of other candidates? Is your candidate telling the voters that they also need to elect Democrats across the board?

[Selwynn]

70. I don't worship Clinton and I support Kucinich in the primaries...

..and whoever has the nomination after - so there's no contradiction. And honestly, I really think there are a lot more people like that then you think.

There are some Clinton worshipers that are like Reganites for the left, sure. But most people see Clinton for what he was -- human. He did many things I agreed with, and I was greatful to him for that, and he did some things I didn't agree with too.

[Scott Lee]

76. Answers

On Clinton and his support of the war:

Compared to Bush, Clinton is a god. There is wide agreement on that issue. But that being said, I have opposed all imperialistic or militarily beligerent wars in this century; those initiated by Bill Clinton notwithstanding. Simply put, Bill and Hillary Clintons' support of this war is wrong.

That doesn't mean that things under Bill Clinton weren't 180 degrees better than they are now.


The "unelectable" factor:

I like 95% of Dennis Kucinich's ideas. I even like him. The problem is, his knuckles are soft.

It is a sad fact that today, more voters seem to be wooed by the fighter than they do the peacemaker. I think lingering heartburn from 9/11 plus the confrontational, sometimes hateful veneer the republicans have put on things over the past 20 years is to blame, but there it is nonetheless. The last person in the world the electorate will want to place in the Oval Office these days is someone who can't pull out an ass whooping.

Finally, the dems are tired of losing. That's one reason why another thread here at DU is suggesting we start arguing with them on their terms (made up stories, unrelated points, vitriolic namecalling etc). Many Democrats who are weary of being second class citizens are ready to adopt almost any measure to get their voice back in D.C.

Can you really blame them?

[shimmergal]

79. Ideas aren't the only consideration I use in picking a candidate.

Besides electability, I also try to factor in his/her character (insofar as it can be known) and experience.

While there's no formula by which we can predict from either one who'll be a good or a great president, we can certainly tell what _isn't_ conducive to one. Just look at Bush's past experience and the things that had come to light about his character!

I'm not implying that Kucinich is necessarily lacking in either quality, just pointing out that "ideas" or "positions on issues" are not the be-all and end-all of what's desirable in a candidate. Too many liberals concentrate on the latter and ignore everything else.

In fact these can and do change somewhat in the light of circumstances, sometimes almost immediately after a candidate gets elected. Liberals need to realize this, and not be so naive about a policy idea being important enough to take a suicide dive.

[durutti]

80. I've Never Liked Bill Clinton

He -- more than anyone -- is responsible for driving the Democratic Party to the right.