If DU is full of "lefties" and "radicals" on the "fringe" (re: Clark)

[SeveneightyWhoa]

..then why is Wesley Clark, a man who is called a conservative or Republican by some, doing SO well here? Yet in the general Democratic population, which is a lot more centrist than DU is, he's NOT doing so well?

Are we just so "radically leftist" that we'll do anything to get Bush out of power, and it just so happens that we see Clark as the best man to do that?
Or is Clark's campaign not doing enough to get through to offline Dems? Or could it possibly be due partly to the media doing their best to leave Clark out of the "serious candidates" spotlight?


It bothers me that Clark isn't seen by many as the #1 nominee, when in my opinion, he quite easily should be. He's doing poorly in a lot of polls and will have a tough time winning the nomination.

The BIGGEST mistake the Democratic voters of America can possibly make, in regards to the future of America AND the world as a whole, is to not elect Wesley Clark as the Democratic nominee for President. It will be an utter travesty if such a brilliant candidate is passed over due to either a lackluster campaign, selectively ignorant media, or uninformed choices on the part of Democratic primary voters. It'll soon be up to Democrats, and Democrats alone, to decide the future of America and the international community. If the Dem voters make Clark their choice, he will pave the rest of the road on the way to the White House.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I realize that this is a pro-Clark thead

but I think there are many other candidates that are awesome as well. Each candidate has contributed to this primary in a positive, constructive way (save Lieberman). Although you may think that Clark is the best Democrat for the presidency, I feel that Kucinich is the best Democrat for the presidency.

Although some people say that Kucinich is unelectable, I just ignore their statements really. I would like to quote Molly Ivins when she says, "In the primary, vote for the candidate that appeals to your heart. In the General Election, vote for the candidate that is the smart decision"

Not the exact quote, but within the context of it.

[Julien Sorel]

16. The problem is, if you wait until the general election to vote

your head, it could easily be too late. There are situations where you must always vote with your head, in my opinion, or you end up voting without much heart when the time comes.

[Syrinx]

2. Our most urgent duty is to eject Bush from the White House

I can't decide which person is most likely to do that, Clark or Dean. Or someone else.

[Zorra]

8. Well said.

I like Kucinich, but agree that it is our foremost duty and responsibility to eject the fascist usurper from the WH.

[Syrinx]

11. We have to stop the bleeding first

Then we can rehabilitate our country. :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. I respect Clark

but the biggest problem I have with him is probably the one you least want to hear about.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

5. Go for it.

I like to hear all opinions on Clark, even from wacko left-wing Commie-lib loonies such as yourself.


..I kid, I kid. But really, go on, I encourage you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Well, Clark sounds really intelligent -

isn't he a Rhodes scholar, top of his class at West Point?

So what exactly were his reasons for voting for Reagan? TWICE? Being non-partisan, that I can understand, but helping to put that empty suit into office is not something I can understand, especially from someone of Clark's obvious intelligence.

[ConsAreLiars]

22. My understanding of this

is that Clark changed over time, and the first War for Oil, with the costs to the troops and the nation, precipitated the switch to Clinton. I suspect that he was impelled into anti-Con political action by this insanely delusional cabal's use of 9/11 to attempt the military occupation and dominance over the middle east and its resources.

But I don't know; I only guess about this.

[Donna Zen]

43. He has answered

So what exactly were his reasons for voting for Reagan? TWICE? Being non-partisan, that I can understand, but helping to put that empty suit into office is not something I can understand, especially from someone of Clark's obvious intelligence.

It all came down to who was offering money to the military. That institution was really damaged after Vietnam, and became very polarized because of a perceived notion that the liberals, represented by the Democrats, hated them. Justly or injustly, that notion was reinforced by Reagan's proposals for rebuilding the military. Strangely enough, that rebuilding would incorporate many progressive ideals that the repubs were against in the civilian world: affirmative action, education, and women's issues. Clark voted for whomever would support the place he worked. I believe that most of us have that issue high on our list.

The Clinton-Gore votes are equally understandable. He knew Clinton, no well, but he knew him. Clark is essentially a free thinker and humanist. He is also very smart, and I think he saw then, a dangerous move to the right in the country.

Clark came onto my radar because of a comment made by a very liberal person. "I've been thinking about this next election," she said, "and I don't think we can win without a candidate who is very strong on national security issues."

I agreed, but who the hell did we have? I started out with Kerry, and still cringe when DU folks blast him for his IWR vote and dismiss all of the years he supported our issues. Nevertheless, I went with some of my Green friends, to a forum where Kerry appeared. My one friend asked Kerry--it was before the IWR--about his stand on Iraq. Actually, it was a bit of an argument, and Kerry was very dismissive. Not good.

I also considered Gov. Dean very seriously including sending money. Dean for me was a compromise because he is actually moderate and leaning right on some of my issues. Also, while he was speaking out about the war, he lacked the necessary gravitas to weather those issues in a national election. Finally, his position on the tax cut roll backs effecting the middle class may work for me, but why make unseating junior harder than it has to be?

Mean while Clark kept hitting the high notes.

Strangely enough it was Clark bashers at DU who made the sell. My position at the time was to keep all options opened, and I came here and read this crazy shit. BFEE, PNAC, stalking horse. Out of my own interest and the interest of keeping a possible candidate viable, I was forced to dig into the charges being thrown out until it hurt. I remember one night furiously typing until 4:30 am while trying to debunk Pristina Airport or maybe it was the famous "oil oligarcy" thread. What I discovered was a complex, brilliant man, who while liberal and electable, has the right stuff. BTW, I think Clark is probably a "muckraker" candidate; and the goddess knows, we could use one. I also would guess that Clark is holding his cards close on many issues such as universal healthcare. Without the money to make it a reality, do we fight that one this year?

Clark is a gift that came out of no where to fall into the Democratic lap. He is also a gift that can keep on giving. Do we send it back and take a "rain check" as opposed to a victory? I don't think so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. Well, it is an answer.

It doesn't really satisfy me to hear that he voted for Reagan for what was basically a selfish reason. It certainly doesn't reassure me that he shares my values and priorities. But it's better than no answer.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Do You Want An Honest Answer?

Because DUer's want someone that is both anti-war AND can actually beat Bush. It is not that Clark is such an amazing candidate for the job, but he matches well against Bush, and it doesn't feel like they are compromising their anti-war integrity.

If you ask about Clark's domestic policies, you may get that they are "not bad." But domestic is not what Clark is here to do. He's here to whip Bush on foreign policy, the issue that most DUer's feel most keenly about after 9/11 and Bush's response to it.

That's an outsider's perspective, so take it with a grain of salt.

[mikehiggins]

6. Sixty days

until the first vote is cast. Let's see how things shape up by the time the Iowa caucuses actually are held. I suspect things may look a lot differently from the way they do now.

It really isn't likely that Gov. Dean will maintain his lead over the field as the actual voting approaches. Too much has gone his way up to this point for it to last.

Kerry and Gephardt, for two, will be increasing the frequency and vehemence of their attacks and all three of them will be injured in the process.

In the meantime, Clark is raising money and has had a spate of tv appearances. I think the money will keep coming in, but the tv invites may decrease as the "hosts" come to realise he isn't a cartoon character who'll fall over his own feet like Gen. Jack D. Ripper.

Time will tell.

[Piltdown]

7. New here

I still can't find all those bolsheviks and moonbats the good folks at Free Republic told me about before they tossed me out, but I have found a lot of fellow Clark supporters.
As for the man himself, it is obvious now that Republicans would prefer a different Democratic candidate, so we can count on their media supporters to minimize the General's impact. Word among the freepers (of course) is that Clark is simply a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton, a fantasy that I think shows just how desperate they are to avoid any substantial discussion of Clark's positions and qualifications.

Clark is also having some problems with his organization, as various pundits never tire of reminding us, but it is still very early in the campaign and he has not yet had the kind of exposure that other candidates have. With an organizational overhaul, and the gradual accumulation of exposure, he could yet move ahead in time for Super-Tuesday. If Clark does win the nomination, Dubya will be gone in a little over a year. Think about it.

[Wickerman]

44. Welcome to DU!

"among the freepers (of course) is that Clark is simply a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton, a fantasy that I think shows just how desperate they are to avoid any substantial discussion of Clark's positions and qualifications."

The Clinton fetish will die someday, maybe not in our life times. That there is no reality in any of their obsession seems to matter not.

Enjoy your stay.

:hi:

[madrchsod]

9. as far as i can see

clark is the only one who can patch up relations with europe and the rest of the world. he will probably be trusted at his word and of course he`s smart enough to understand complex issues.he would be able to work with various governments to get us the hell out of iraq. on the homefront that is where his choice of his cabinet and advisors come into play,that is the unknown for now. most importantly he has the respect of the military and the understanding of the military. he would be able to restore the trust of the military with the civilian side of the government. and last but not least,he would destroy bush in a debate.

[Indiana_Dem]

23. If the central wedge issue becomes Iraq

then Clark has it. I will vote anybody but Bush in the prez elections but I'm still not sure in the primary. Clark's passion is military and Iraq. He comes on fire because he knows what to do. I think people are looking for someone who will make us feel safer. Someone who will secure our borders more appropriately to guard against WMD attack. If we are attacked majorly by WMD, our freedoms are gone. the rest of the issues don't matter then. This should be the number one issue before it's too late.

After watching all the debates now, I'm tired of the mud-slinging between Dean, Gephardt & Kerry. I'll vote for them against Bush but I don't think so in the primary. I don't respect attacks on our own party people when we need to appear unified.

[Donna Zen]

54. No Tommy Franks

Clark would take Franks apart on the assertion that we scrape the Constitution in times of attack. He is absolutely wild on the issue. Damn, I've seen him in Q & A sessions quote from the Federalist Papers off the top of his head.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Other Democrats would work well with the rest of the world too

Though Clark would be able to do good things in foreign policy himself, immediately, rather than needing a good Secretary of State to get things going.
Clinton was OK in foreign policy once he had settled in. It's the willingness to cooperate with other countries that's important, rather than previous experience.
Hell, most of the world thought we could work with Colin Powell OK, roughly up until his United Nations 'somthing nasty in the vial' speech.

For why Clark seems more popular on this 'left-leaning' board than in the general Democratic vote: perhaps because many members here have a distrust of 'party machine' politicians. All of the other major contenders have been elected multiple times - Gephardt and Lieberman especially have very little popularity here.

[QC]

10. DU is about as radical leftist as the Charleston Junior League.

[oasis]

12. Dean and Kerry are great but Clark beats Chimpy with no sweat. I

think many DUers are beginning to realize that if this country is under the control of the BFEE for another four years, the clock will be irreversably rolled back.

I'm a Kerry person, BTW.

[Mattforclark]

13. Appearance and Reality

Because Clark appears to be moderate, but is actually quite liberal. That's a double, no a triple whammy, because he:

1) is electable
2) has the moderate credability to push legislation through
3) will pursue the type of legislation that we want

All sorts of other things, like his intelligence, his knowledge of 4 languages, the fact that he already knows most of our allies in Europe, that he is not a career politician yet has experience in foreign affairs and in things like housing/schooling (for SACEUR and military bases) and so on are added bonuses.

It's an open and shut case as far as I'm concerned.

[ErasureAcer]

15. the fact is DU isn't really LEFT

there are so many Nader and Moore haters here...it is a fucking joke. Here are people that stand up for what is right in the world, and don't compromise...and they're lambasted by MANY DUers.

The only reason I come here is to catch up on obscure news, and once in a while attack the moderate views of who these people support for president.

There is a strong push for Clark here because Clark is a moderate(a guy who praises bush is not to the "left") and DU is moderate.

Simple as that.

[Dr Satan]

17. The Clark bots

are more vocal and are paid to spam DU.
Perception is not reality.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

18. Shut up.

Another leftist conspiracy theory, as Tucker Carlson would say..

[WillyBrandt]

20. I'm getting paid for this?

I'm waiting for my PNAC checks. Do you know when they arrive?

[democratreformed]

48. Me too!

I hope my check gets here before my trip next weekend! :)

[WoodrowFan]

63. Can I catch a ride to the Thankgiving Dinner at the CIA tonight?

Can I catch a ride to the Thankgiving Dinner at the CIA tonight? We get our checks AND a Thanksgiving ham to take home, courtesy of the guys at the SOA.

[Barbara917]

28. That's paranoia in action

I'm being paid? Where's the money? :D

[_NorCal_D_]

52. Indeed.

My check from the RNC is in the mail. :eyes: :tinfoilhat:

[burr]

19. radicals...lefties, does this include Clark supporters?

I thought bringing democracy to America was a mainstream issue, not some radical one. Of course in the 18th century it was considered extremely radical, very flakey by many! "What if the people voted to cut off the king's head?"..some would ask!

And I still encounter many DUers who favor keeping some of Shrub's taxcuts, and don't even favor universal healthcare. Are those people also lefties?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

21. DU is not nearly as left as it once was...

When I first started reading DU and registered it was very progressive. The registered numbers have grown a lot in the last 7-10 months. A majority of those coming in are moderate/centrists. Too often progressives seem to be shouted down or ridiculed now.

:shrug:

TWL

[Pastiche423]

25. You've got that right!

And too many progressives have left.

[Renew Deal]

37. Being progressive and supporting a different candidate are seperate.

I don't see people getting shouted down. People here support their candidates. Aside from some candidate wars and hating, there is free reign here. Especially outside of GD.

[Blue_Chill]

90. It's much better now then it used to be

I for one am enjoying the rise in moderate DUers.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. DU: 60% / 50% / 40%

According to recent polls, nearly 60% of respondents believed Wellstone's death was some kind of conspiracy, over 50% of respondents are self-described socialists, and nearly 40% of respondents support revolutionary change in our political/economic systems.

DU is unquestionably far left.

DTH

[papau]

26. op-in polls mean little - and Democratic Solicialist is the center left

in Europe - and in the US.

As for conspiracy, Grover Norquist lives 2 miles from me - and born well off neer-do-wells like Grover do nothing other than conspire to enhance their class - but for the public good of course.

And if decreasing Corporate power over our lives, and having a political/legal system that does not run rough-shod over those with less, via the ballot box and attempts to be heard in the media, is not moderate center left, but rather is to be for "revolutionary change in our political/economic systems", then all those folks in the 60's that decided that guns and bombs were the only sounds the rich and corporate would pay attention to must have been far, far left!

:-)


I question the idea that DU is unquestionably far left!!!!

:-)

[prolesunited]

42. That's quite a distortion there!

Those polls were not statistically valid and you know it! How many people responded? What percentage does that represent of DU's total population?

You cannot possibly contend that a self-selected polling of an extremely small subset of DU posters represents where this site is on the political spectrum.

Do you honestly believe that 50% of all of the posters here are socialists?

[KittyWampus]

56. Then Please Post Some Other Valid Data To Back Up Your Own Assertion

That DU is NOT far left or even Progressive.

Other than accedotal evidence based on threads you personally have opened and your own personal take on the posts therein.

[prolesunited]

62. Are you talking to me?

I didn't make any assertions. I was just questioning the statistical validity of DTH's poll results.

Personally, I don't there is no way of knowing other anecdotally. I've been here a couple of years. My sense, although I have no valid data, is that it used to be far more progressive initially, but it has become increasingly moderate and centrist.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

66. Chew on These, Pal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=561809

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=288780

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=453863

See, I love absolutely demolishing the occasional, random assertions that challenge my integrity.

Oh, and despite your claim to the contrary, I never said otherwise on the polls only being for those who responded. That's what "respondents" means, don'tcha know.

Each of these polls garnered HUNDREDS of responses. That's a statistically significant sample, even if the results might happen to be at odds with your own desired worldview.

DTH

[prolesunited]

70. Umm...

Your links produce blank pages for me. I'm not an expert on statistics, but when you have hundreds of people respond it is not statistically significant for the THOUSANDS of people here.

For a small sampling to be valid to extrapolate to a larger group, you have to account for a number of variables and a self-selected survey simply does not do that. What are the demographics of your respondents? How do you know they represent a subset of all DU posters?

You can't assert that posters logged on during a specific time period that chose to click on a particular thread and who chose to answer represent the DU community at large. What is your margin of error? How do you know posters didn't put fake answers?

None of the polls conducted on DU have any true statistical significance. They all should be marked "for amusement purposes only."

I'll ask my friend ProfessorGAC to weigh in on this since this is his area.

How do you know what my "desired worldview" is? I wasn't challenging your integrity, just questioning one assertion. And please cut the condescending tone. What's that about?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

71. You Accused Me of Distortion

So I'm afraid condescension is the best you're going to get.

You obviously don't understand the nature of statistics. A few hundred respondents are absolutely a valid sample for a population of 35,000 or so. That's why you see polls with as few as 300-400 respondents being extrapolated out to a general population of MILLIONS. In fact, any sample of as few as 30 or more can potentially be a valid sample for a much larger population.

Your concern OUGHT to be focused on methodology, and not sample size. There might be something to that (although the one example you raise concerning the timing of logins is weak, unless you can establish that more liberal folks are more or less likely to login at any particular time), but IMO they're at least reasonably indicative of a trend.

Oh, and the links resolve fine for me, although they're a bit slow.

DTH

[prolesunited]

74. And neither do you

but I do know enough to know that your assertions are simply not correct.

I agree that a few hundred respondents can be a valid sample — provided your methodology is correct and a DU poll is simply not a valid methodology.

Here's an article for you to look at that explains the differences between conducting an ineffective vs. accurate Web survey.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:WfjCzXngp7MJ:www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/inthenews/Bus2.0-FastFoodArticle.pdf+methodology+for+statistically+valid+survey&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Please note as I was trying to explain:
For the cheap, unreliable survey
Moreover, recruiting a sample
by banner ad introduces a self-selection bias,
and the company does not tweak the respon-
dent sample to match the population being
studied. ... the equivalent of "walking over
to the water cooler and asking your peers, 'What
do you think?' "

For the scientifically valid survey
More importantly, Harris Interactive uses a
methodology called propensity weighting,
which matches the survey sample "characteris-
tics”and the frequency of those characteris-
tics”to the general population.

I've spent entirely too much time on this already. If you want to continue believing DU polls are statistically valid so be it.

[ProfessorGAC]

91. Playing The Referee

Sorry, DTH, but these polls are not statistically valid. The sample is, indeed, VERY small on two of them, and even then, there is clearly a lack of randomness. They're not even pseudorandom.

Now, i would hope you would not accuse me of not understanding the nature of statistics, because that would be libelous. I forgot more about stats TODAY, then 99.999% of the population will ever know. I've been teaching these techniques at the grad level since the mid-80's and have dozens of published papers on system modeling and econometrics. So, i think my credentials are acceptable to ref this dispute.

Now to the explanation:

For one thing, the sample is grossly distorted by the fact that the probability exists that people coming to DU would be at least centrist and then move left. Secondly, they have to be activist and have to have enough interest to log onto to a website like this. Thirdly, they have to be on-line at a time when the poll is present and care to respond to the poll. Since the topic would likely be in the Title Line, people would be more prone to answer to topics in which they have keen interest. Even if that tendency is 1ppm, the randomness is GONE! Fourth, there is absolutely no way to know how many polls are answered by whim or how many times the responses don't accurately fit a person's sensibilities and are forced to take the "best fit" answer.

All of these mean that, by definition, there can be no statistically valid inference made as to the character of the DU population as a whole.

Last point: One would, in order to have any hope of getting a quasi-random sample which would accurately predict the overall sensibility at DU, have to:
1. Weight the responses based upon the volume of activity of the respondent. The more activist and more active on DU, the greater the probability of that person answering.
2. Determine the fraction of posts of a respondent that are characterized by valid opinion and are factually or analytically based, to avoid overweighting a poster based upon frivolous and fun posting in the Lounge (this would require a massive effort and some fairly subjective metrics)
3. Determine the LaPlacian value of fraction of respondents needed to achieve a valid poll at some agreed upon confidence interval.
4. Do a complete study of a statistically significant number of content posts to determine (or attempt to) a set of philosophical strata.
5. Modify the sampling requirements in #3 to reflect the fraction of each strata.
6. Reject all responses from a stratum that exceeds the confidence interval of that statum by random choice.
7. Then determine the power of the final model to decide the probability of Type I and Type II errors from the final data, extrapolated to the entire population.

I would surmise that this would actually be a paper i could assign someone as their MS thesis in statistical mechanics. It would likely be a few months of work, and then might have only enough power to be 75% likely to be true.

DTH, your data is totally subjective (cherry-picked), and your statistical basis is weak, at best. Sorry, but you lose this argument.
The Professor

[prolesunited]

93. Thank you!

That's an excellent explanation that I will copy with your permission and use any time someone asserts that the polls here carry any weight. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

[ProfessorGAC]

94. Feel Free!

It's not profound enough to worry about someone using it, or even taking credit for it, for that matter. If a grad student wouldn't be able to write this the first day, i'd know that person's gonna struggle the rest of the term.
The Professor

[DoveTurnedHawk]

97. The Polls Here Carry Whatever Persuasive Weight the Reader Chooses

That should be obvious. No one is claiming they're statistically valid, even to a degree that you could determine a MOE.

What they are, however, is indicative of a trend. Poll after poll has shown (and anecdotal evidence from reading posts confirms, IMO) that DU is far left of both the general population and the subset of the general population of Democrats.

I challenge you to find a single poll or any other numerical data that supports the contrary position. You won't find it. That's persuasive to me, and I suspect many others as well who aren't fooled by straw man statistical jargon.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

95. Oh, Brother

Please quote EXACTLY where I claimed the polls were "statistically valid?" Everyone knows online polls have lots of problems, especially those where you're able to vote many times (unlike here). What I DID say was that, in my opinion, they were "reasonably indicative of a trend." Accordingly, your entire argument is a straw man and intellectually dishonest. Read what I wrote, not what you wish I'd said.

There is a competing claim here, that DU is either far left or not, when compared to the general population (or even the general population of Democrats). My belief is that DU is indeed far left. My belief is bolstered by the polls I cited. It's not enough for you to say, "Those polls aren't statistically valid." I agree, there are methodology problems (again, as I specifically stated above).

But they constitute better information and data than anything you or anyone else trying to argue the contrary position has provided.

I would also note that even Skinner appears to agree that the polls (or at least the Wellstone one) are somewhat embarrassing. I don't think he'd say that if he didn't think they were at least "reasonably indicative of a trend."

DTH

PS: For one thing, the sample is grossly distorted by the fact that the probability exists that people coming to DU would be at least centrist and then move left. Secondly, they have to be activist and have to have enough interest to log onto to a website like this.

You are making my point for me. My point is that DU is unquestionably far left of the general population and even Democrats in general.

Thirdly, they have to be on-line at a time when the poll is present and care to respond to the poll. Since the topic would likely be in the Title Line, people would be more prone to answer to topics in which they have keen interest. Even if that tendency is 1ppm, the randomness is GONE! Fourth, there is absolutely no way to know how many polls are answered by whim or how many times the responses don't accurately fit a person's sensibilities and are forced to take the "best fit" answer.

Yes, but so what? What data do YOU have that indicates respondents are any more or less likely to answer the question in a liberal or moderate fashion, based on whether they like to answer polls or what time of day the poll was on the front page, say?

Finally, I'd be curious as to why you seem to believe polls with hundreds of respondents (constituting 1% or more of the number of unbanned registrants) constitutes a "very small" sample.

[ProfessorGAC]

98. Reading for Comprehension Is A Skill

You should look into it.

"You are making my point for me. My point is that DU is unquestionably far left of the general population and even Democrats in general."

No, i'm not. I said VERY clearly, that the nature of these polls mean one cannot infer anything, one way or the other. So, it would have been quite impossible for me to make your point for you since the only point i was making was that we can conclude anything! Pay more attention!

"Yes, but so what? What data do YOU have that indicates respondents are any more or less likely to answer the question in a liberal or moderate fashion, based on whether they like to answer polls or what time of day the poll was on the front page, say?"

I said we DON'T HAVE THE DATA TO MAKE ANY STATISTICALLY VALID INFERENCES! (For the 4th freaking time!) How the heck could i possibly have data to support that something doesn't exist?!?!? I don't need data to support that we don't have the proper data. That's tautalogical. And, one cannot have ANY data, on any matter, to prove a lack of existence! So, nice try!

There are firm theorems that underpin the proper use of quasirandom stratified sampling. There are firm theorems that support appropriate sample weighting. These polls have neither. Therefore, they are, by statistical definition, not significant. What part of that do you not understand?

No offense intended to Skinner, but he is your authority on understanding polls? That's quite a stretch. I doubt he thinks of himself as an authority. He's certainly never posted anything that would indicate that to me. Sp, your argument there is flat.

You started an argument that used your "understanding" of the numbers as support. I tried to ref it, simply because it was obvious you were in error. I couldn't care less whether you want to agree.

Look: You've decided you're right, and there will be no convincing you that you're understanding of statistics and inferences to be drawn from numbers is grossly off base. And frankly, i don't care.

So, let me reply with this parting shot: Oh, Brother! You really just don't get what i'm talking about, do you?
The Professor

Edited for Title Typo

[DoveTurnedHawk]

104. It Is Indeed a Skill, I Hear It Gets Better With Practice

I recommend it to everyone.

"You are making my point for me. My point is that DU is unquestionably far left of the general population and even Democrats in general."

No, i'm not. I said VERY clearly, that the nature of these polls mean one cannot infer anything, one way or the other. So, it would have been quite impossible for me to make your point for you since the only point i was making was that we can conclude anything! Pay more attention!

You weren't even talking about polling data, you were talking about the obvious, qualitative observation that DU is a place for Democrats who care enough about issues to post on a message board. Your concession (for which I thank you very much) bolsters my argument that DU is far left of the general population, and even of Democrats, despite the fact that MY argument is not YOUR argument. Yet those are the most powerful sorts of concessions and admissions, the inadvertent ones which support your opponent's argument.

Again, I thank you.

There are firm theorems that underpin the proper use of quasirandom stratified sampling. There are firm theorems that support appropriate sample weighting. These polls have neither. Therefore, they are, by statistical definition, not significant. What part of that do you not understand?

So are you trying to claim, then, that poll after poll after poll which all indicate that DU seems to have a higher percentage of self-described socialists/radicals/conspiracy theorists are completely irrelevant with respect to the proposition itself? With absolutely zero value whatsoever?

I'd be very interested to see you say that flat-out.

Look: You've decided you're right, and there will be no convincing you that you're understanding of statistics and inferences to be drawn from numbers is grossly off base. And frankly, i don't care.

From your increasing levels of huffiness, you obviously care very much, which amuses me greatly.

So, let me reply with this parting shot: Oh, Brother! You really just don't get what i'm talking about, do you?

Oh, sure, I definitely understand spin when I see it.

DTH

[prolesunited]

99. Here is your original post

According to recent polls, nearly 60% of respondents believed Wellstone's death was some kind of conspiracy, over 50% of respondents are self-described socialists, and nearly 40% of respondents support revolutionary change in our political/economic systems.

DU is unquestionably far left.

You made a claim and put it forth as THE truth and it wasn't until I spoke up that you even began discussing validity.
"What I DID say was that, in my opinion, they were "reasonably indicative of a trend."" <-- This statement was not made until I began questioning your assertions.

I would also note that even Skinner appears to agree that the polls (or at least the Wellstone one) are somewhat embarrassing. I don't think he'd say that if he didn't think they were at least "reasonably indicative of a trend." <-- And that's QUITE a leap in logic there. How do you possibly get from Point A to Point B on that one.

My question is why is it apparently so important to you to prove that DU is "far left"?

I'm not trying to prove anything to the contrary, I was just questioning the basis for your assertion.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

100. Do You Really Need a Bunch of "IMO" Tags

To grasp that I was expressing my opinion as bolstered by polls? Or do we need to get into what "respondent" means again?

DTH

[prolesunited]

101. OK, whatever!

You win. I'm done wasting my time here.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

105. Thanks for Your Concession, Too (eom)

DTH

[prolesunited]

108. It was out of sheer exhaustion

and exasperation. I still think you're incorrect. :D :hi:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

109. OK, Then We'll Agree To Disagree

;-)

:toast:

DTH

[dudeness]

27. first win office..

this seems logical ..no point being totally puritanical in political viewpoints from the opposition benches..win government on populist but ethical policies that address health,education ,defence,international relations etc..then through rank and file involvement in the party process evolve and implement an agenda that is your party platform..however you need to find a person to defeat bush and co..I am being totally pragmatic for a change or perhaps its just age and weariness..

[lowkell]

29. Democrats are delusional if they nominate Dean

If the Democrats actually go ahead and nominate Howard Dean thinking he can beat Bush, they are completely delusional. In fact, I'd say they are suicidal. I challenge ANYBODY to come up with a plausible scenario whereby Dean actually captures 270 Electoral Votes in November 2004. Please remember, I said "realistic;" anybody can come up with a farfetched scenario.

For Clark, on the other hand, it's simple to get 270 EVs: hold the Gore "blue" states, carry his home state of Arkansas, add West Virginia (should be easy after the steel tariff debacle) and New Hampshire (the only New England state which didn't go for Gore last time), and that's that. You could even throw in Ohio for a safety margin, because that's a definite possibility if Clark's the nominee.

But if the Democrats actually give in to delusion and nominate Dean, we can forget the whole thing. Dean would be lucky to hold a lot of Gore's "blue states," let alone add any new ones. Not only that, but if Dean loses in a landslide, which is highly likely, you can forget the U.S. Senate as well.

Unfortunately, that's the realistic scenario if Dean is nominated...

[fujiyama]

30. I have no clue

how Dean could hold on to ALL of Gore's states and pick up a few more.

I think Dean will win the North East -- DE, NY, NJ, RI, CT, MA, and ME
He'll also probably win CA, MI, WA, and maybe IA

But I don't see him picking up states trending republican like PA and MN, not to mention any real swing states like WV, LA, AR, WI, or any other southern states.

But hey, some people seem to be convinced...

[newyawker99]

33. Hi lowkell!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TLM]

85. Oh look another Clark Corps Dean basher

with a post count in the single digits...

Guess this is more of that "Clark Magic."

[lastliberalintexas]

106. They?

Does that mean you are not a Dem yourself, since you are referring to us as "they"? Just wondering...

[wyldwolf]

31. The facts disagree with your basic premise...

...if your basic premise is this: then why is Wesley Clark, a man who is called a conservative or Republican by some, doing SO well here? Yet in the general Democratic population, which is a lot more centrist than DU is, he's NOT doing so well?

True, Clark is doing well on DU but he's also doing well in the general Democratic population.

Look at all the major polls for confirmation.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

[CWebster]

34. A new twist in the strategy

The Clark people are very aggressive and well-organized in their marketing, and their strategies are all fairly transparent for those in tune. The latest pitch is "Clark is so popular at DU" to create the bandwagon effect. Previous attempts have been posted testimonials targeted at progressives who fit the demographics of a Dean supporter--gay females, for example, or posts from so called previous Dean supporters who have seen the light. There was even a thread where they discussed quite openly how to get Clark more "traction" and freely admitted that calls to hit DU polls were posted on Clark sites. Hedda Foil called one poster on it who slipped up with it this past weekend and there was a long thread about it.

I can understand their ambition, but the fact that they have to use such obviously deceptive means to accomplish it is not anything I admire and it tends to turn me off. Clark psych-ops.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

58. LMAO

I hope you're joking.
If not, some of you people are psychologically twisted.

[Frederic Bastiat]

68. Dude

You've imploded.

[KittyWampus]

35. Clark Is Closest To Kucinich On The Political Compass

He is the most LEFT LEANING candidate besides Dennis. He does however PROJECT a moderate image.

And he is eminently qualified for Domestic Policy but the media whores are doing their best to make an impression that he is not.

They keep any dialouge with Clark pretty much limited to Foreign Policy.

And if he DOES bring up Economics... they usually say, after he utters his first 3 words, "Please be specific". Even though he's had no chance to get out a complete sentence.

Last night Clark made it clear that he understands the importance of investing in Green Technology and of structuring tax code to give incentives to keep better jobs here.

[CWebster]

36. LOL

Department of peace vs General of War.

Thanks for reminding me---here is another one designed specifically to draw in the Left---Clark is most similar philosophically to Kucinich.

That is ludicrous. What do you suppose Kucinich would think of this:

"The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

'The results in the '90s spoke for themselves,' Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. 'Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again.'

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, 'Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch.'"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

[KittyWampus]

39. Clark Has Proposed A "Dept. of Peace"

But you are too lazy or biased to bother getting informed.

And Clark knows enough about basic economic theory not to fall for the lure of Protectionism.

He is smart enough to see the need to retool our economy for Green Tech. and create new jobs and use tax code to keep those quality jobs here.

But this is all in his policy papers...

[_NorCal_D_]

55. It's the truth:

Thanks for reminding me---here is another one designed specifically to draw in the Left---Clark is most similar philosophically to Kucinich.

Take a look at these:

http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm
Wesley Clark is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

http://www.issues2000.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm
Dennis Kucinich is a Liberal Populist

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm
Howard Dean is a Moderate Liberal

April 10, 2003
Anti-War Candidate? What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm


Oct. 8, 2003
A warrior for peace
Why Wesley Clark could be an Eisenhower for our time.
http://oklahomansforclark.com/Eisenhower.htm

[CWebster]

73. Yesiree

"specially when it comes to deregulating the media and energy corps and the SOA.

Like peas in a pod.

[Pastiche423]

78. Uh, CWebster?

You left out sending IT (S/W jobs) to India.

[Tinoire]

92. OMG. From Defending School of the Americas to Clark close to Kucinich?

In this thread you're defending the School of the Americas aka School of the Assassins and in this one you're saying Kucinich and Clark are close?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=773918

Please. Stop saying garbage like that. It makes you look... uninformed.

No need to respond here. You can respond in the SOA thread since I'm going to post that there for you also.

Kucinich: I Will Close School of Americas
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 21, 2003


Over the next three days, thousands are expected to protest the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Ga. (The school has been renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.)

Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich today released the following statement:

"I stand against terror and violence and in solidarity with the victims of the School of the Americas graduates. I support nonviolent demonstration against the SOA. The United States' ability to persuade other nations to investigate terrorism will be strengthened by the closing of a US school that has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers to wage war against their own people, against union organizers, religious workers, teachers, and student leaders. As president I will close the School of the Americas."

Rev. Roy Bourgeois, MM, Founder of SOA WATCH and Dennis Kucinich endorser, said:

"Today our world is filled with violence and people are looking for hope. I am supporting Dennis Kucinich for President because he is the person who can bring more peace and justice in our country and in our world. These are challenging times and Dennis Kucinich has the wisdom, integrity, vision and courage to give us the hope our country is seeking today."

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_112103c.php



US Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, a Democrat of Ohio, is a dynamic, visionary leader of the Progressive Caucus of the congressional Democrats who combines a powerful activism with a spiritual sense of the essential interconnectedness of all living things. His holistic worldview carries with it a passionate commitment to public service, peace, human rights, workers rights, and the environment. His advocacy of a Department of Peace seeks not only to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society, but to make war archaic. His is a powerful, ethical voice for nuclear disarmament, preservation of the ABM treaty, banning weapons in outer space, and a halt to the development of a 'Star Wars' - type missile defense technology.

He has been recognized of his advocacy of human rights in Burma, Nigeria and East Timor. Together with the late Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass), he has led a concerted effort to close the School of the Americas, which has been an incubator of human rights violations in Central America. On the eve of the World Trade Organization's Seattle conference, Rep. Kucinich organized 114 Democrats to help convince President Clinton to seek human rights, workers rights and environmental quality principles as preconditions in all US trade agreements. Kucinich marched with workers through the streets of Seattle protesting the WTO's policies and with students through the streets of Washington, DC, challenging the structural readjustment policies of the IMF.
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/info/bio.htm

[TexasSissy]

38. Clark's not doing poorly in the polls

The initial poster asked why Clark is "doing so poorly in the polls," when he should be doing well. This is incorrect. The last couple of national polls (Wall Street Journal and USA/Gallup) have Clark in the lead....it's a narrow margin, but he's in the lead. These polls will change a lot in the coming months, but for now, he's doing well, esp. considering he just entered the race a couple of months ago. He's also second, after Dean, in raising funds, I believe.

[prolesunited]

40. You need to work a little more on your "persuasive" rhetoric

C'mon, you can come up with something better than if you don't support Clark, you're a fringe leftist.

BTW, many here wear that label proudly and do not see it as something they need to change.

[Code_Name_D]

49. But the fringe leftist on the DU support Clark....

Or so the Kluckers claim.

Just another example of how they try to argue both sides of the coin.

[JNelson6563]

41. I can speak for my corner of the world

real world that is, not the unrealistic world of DU.

Until recently there was no group of Clark supporters. Suddenly one gets started. Suddenly the two most ardent supporters are accessing party info. Suddenly I am hearing back from those who volunteered for DEM PARTY stuff are being wrongly solicited by Clarkies. These Dem members gave us their info with the idea only we, the party would use it, not others. As the individual who gathered this volunteer info I have had some s'plainin' to do.

Needless to say, no one who remotely supports Clark has access any longer to party info. The dishonesty of stealing info not theirs for the taking and the obnoxiousness of soliciting folks who did not volunteer for their campaign has gone a long way in leaving a sour taste in the mouth of many here regarding Clark, even though it is doubtful the General would agree to such behavior.

Too bad some of the supporters cannot be so upstanding as their candidate. They do much harm to the cause that way.

Julie

[xultar]

45. DEM PARTY stuff , What's that? What does wrongly solicited mean

These Dem members gave us their info with the idea only we, the party would use it, not others. What does that mean?

Needless to say, no one who remotely supports Clark has access any longer to party info. What party info.

I don't think you should be able to throw out accusations like that with out any proof or specifics. So spill it...

[JNelson6563]

77. I'd be glad to PM you more specifics

but being a public board and all I will not names names etc. I will say this, our party here is neutral. Individuals support candidates but none of has authority to access Dem lists to solicit for our candidate. This has been done but now safegaurded against. Also, really spoiled my I'm-a-Deanie-who-will-work-with-you attitude.

Julie

[KittyWampus]

46. Yeah, I'm Sure Every Dean Supporter Has Been Angelic

Smearing all Clark supporters by whatever experience you've had with one or two is pretty pathetic.

And if one or two abused whatever access they supposedly were given, then you should confront THEM and hold THEM accountable.

That anyone in the Dem Party establishment where you work would exclude other Clark supporters from getting involved in Dem Party activities is represhensible and highly irresponsible not to mention most likely against official Democratic Policy.

Why penalize all Clark supporters for the inappropriate actions of a few?

How do you know that the original 2 were even Clark supporters and not people trying to make his campaing look bad?

Reemeber when the GOP sent a tape of Junior's debate practise sessions to Gore's camp to make it look like Gore was cheating?

[JNelson6563]

81. Settle down

I am not penalizing all Clark supporters. In fact, one here that I admire very much was the first to hear of this debacle and it was a couple of weeks ago. He got enough specifics, was horrified and suggested I write the campaign as they'd be displeased.

I was telling the original poster why I thought Clark wasn't especially catching fire here. One reason is they are just beginning to organize but it is the incident I cited that has kinda put some of the main Dems around here in a less positive mindset re: that campaign.

Oh and another outa-nowhere from your shrill shrieks, no one has been excluded from any event. All supporters of all candidates are welcome to any event to campaign for their guy/gal.

I am sure Dean supporters somewhere have done same. Some even disagree with me that party info should be off limits to all until after primary.

I can assure you that here the Deanies have had no access. I am the keeper of that info and I never entertained using if for anything other than the party. While I am a Dean supporter I am a Democrat before that and party building so we can take it all back, from county commissions to the WH is my main priority.

Julie

[bicentennial_baby]

53. Explain please

Could you please explain what you're talking about in more detail please? I'm very confused by your statements.

[kodi]

47. why? because clarkies invaded this site beginning months ago

frankly the sanctimony now arising on DU from the clarkies actually rivals that of the deanies, and that in and of itself is quite an accomplishment.

supporters of both men have such blind spots concerning their candidates weaknesses and policy positions that often i think i have wandered onto a site full of religous fanatics.

i like what dean stands for, he is correct that the election is about us not him, and for dean it had better be, because too often dean comes off as an arrogant dick.

clark, on the other hand frequently appears almost totally clueless about political realities in this country.

and these are the top democratic choices.

i weep for my country, and i will work to get more democrats in congress, because we have now seen what happens when the gop runs the legislative branch.

even if dean or clark, or even gephardt win in 2004, they will almost certainly face a rabidly partisan republican congress and what they will do to a democrat in the white house will make the attacks on clinton look like a bird walk.

you know, and i know that none of these men in 2004 will get as many votes against george bush as al gore did in 2000.

i'm taking the long term viewpoint, will forgo national presidential campaigns and remain active at the local level, because that is where we will have to rebuild the democratic party, not from the top down like presidential campaign supporters like to think.

howard dean understands this and i hope that he will lead or at least participate the formation of a progressive, grass roots movement to regain the national party from moneied interests and be ready to participate in the election of a democratic president in 2008, because i think that 2004 is already a lost cause.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

50. Bingo...

"why? because clarkies invaded this site beginning months ago. Frankly the sanctimony now arising on DU from the clarkies actually rivals that of the deanies, and that in and of itself is quite an accomplishment."

I have often dropped by the site and thought to myself, 'Toto, we're not in DU anymore.'

The DU today is a MUCH different place than it was a few years ago.

Hell
A Far Left Fringe Person

[bloom]

51. Bingo, bingo, bingo

"The DU today is a MUCH different place than it was a few YEARS ago."

make that MONTHS

[TacticalPeek]

57. The prospect of a pivotal Presidential election

concentrates the mind wonderfully.

:)

[KittyWampus]

59. I Remember When Deanies Invaded So YOu Must Not Have Been Here Long

:D

And as a Clark supporter I certainly have no blind spot.

When Clark said he supported "protecting the flag" (using Dean's terms :D) I said I disagreed with him on this one issue but wouldn't let such a wedge issue put me off especially since Clark would never have to vote on it... and since he is adamant about our right to dissent.

What I did NOT do was suddenly start trying to support the notion that a flag burning amendment was a good i dea.

Now let's contrast this with Dean supporters:

Dean said Affirmative Action should be based on Class not Race.
Dean supporters then began defending this.
Traditionally the FAR LEFT would abhor the concept of AA being based on Class.

Dean switched his stance on Cuban Trade
Dean supporters rush to change their positions
Traditionally the FAR LEFT would abhor the continuation of the Cuban Embargo.

Dean supports repealing the Middle Class Tax Cut
Dean supporters meekly go along
Traditionally the FAR LEFT would abhor repealing tax cuts for the Middle Class

Dean will not cut Pentagon Funding
Dean supporters say nothing
Traditionally the FAR LEFT would abhor the bloated Pentagon budget.

[kodi]

61. oh, i 've been here since feb 2001under another name, and you?

and i watched the deanies flood this board too, with almost exactly the level of arrogance your statement below belays.

"And as a Clark supporter I certainly have no blind spot."

sure buddy. you and the taliban have quite a lot in common.

[KittyWampus]

64. I Gave An Example Of A Clark Position I Didn't Agree With

thus proving my point. I'm not blind. I admit there's a difference of opinion. I didn't change to accomodate my candidate.oc

I also provided examples of what I've witnessed many Dean supporters doing. Changing their own supposed Far Left views to accomodate Dean.

This touched on:

your comment about blind spots
the thread's main topic about DU/Clark being or not being Far Left
comments in this thread on how DU supposedly has changed and become Centrist in the last year.

By the way,

For Dean to suggest that the election is not about him, his qualifications for POTUS and his ability or inability to beat Junior is....
objectionable to say the least.

[kodi]

72. “One swallow does not a summer make.”

You point out your difference of opinion on the flag amendment Clark would endorse. It is not related to the comments I had made about Clark. It is not a response to the implied inability of Clark to understand modern American political realities, nor that his more rabid followers show a startling inability to see this flaw in Clark.

My point was that Clark is politically naïve.

Clark’s comments last night on letting IT jobs flow to India was politically naïve. It showed that he has far to go with understanding the impact of glib remarks, especially since he was right. But he said it in the wrong way.

Further, I like Wes Clark, but he hasn’t built his narrative yet. I don’t think he has a clue about how to run for president, but I think he has a great idea of how to be one. Maybe he should use that narrative.

The same affliction of enthusiasm that courses the veins of rabid Deanies is also apparent in a significant portion of the Clarkies here.

True believerism, to the core.

I have seen Clarkies dismiss Deanies posted negative facts about Clark with the same contempt that some Deanies dismiss Dean’s inconsistencies.

Both camps have marauders and thread spoilers who attack with loopy logic their adversaries, yet they hold positions if examined with the same critical lens are equally absurd.

What is funny is that you seem to imply that the more rabid Deanies are from the left and are abandoning the objectivity that allows for their righteous indignation. These folks never were from the doctrinaire Left. On the most part, they’re just politically shallow or bereft of life experience.

I am not as impressed with Howard Dean as I am with what he has rekindled; a grass roots activism that can sweep the party up from its roots.

It is why I do think he understands why the movement is bigger than him. I think he is smart enough to see and understand it.

For that alone he shows wisdom.

He is the only major candidate who is pressing this point. It is an important point, because the only way the Democratic Party has a chance, and the only way the average citizen can make a difference is through more political and social activism by progressives throughout the landscape.

That is an intelligent and long-term viewpoint, and one, which was used by the republican hard right after 1964 when Goldwater was beaten.

It took them 40 years to fully recover, but they are running the show now, and they did it by building a political party that had a large number of very active people at all levels of the process.

With the large sums of money and power arrayed against progressive policy positions, it is impossible to defeat these things in a conventional manner. We are going to have to resort to the equivalent of political guerrilla warfare by using the only tools we have, and that is the numbers. The vast numbers of people who face the same critical issues to live their lives are the best resource to use to promote all our hopes.

This means grass roots, hands-on local political and social activism. And this is what Howard Dean is about. I just wish he would get the stick out of his ass.

BTW: Oh man, anyone thinking this site hasn’t become more centrist and adolescent recently doesn’t deserve a seat at the table of reason.

[xultar]

60. You know what...When Howard Dean Wins the nomination, and

begins the campaign for the general election I'm gonna laugh my head off.

Why?

1. Howard Dean is actually slightly to the Right of Clark over all
2. For Howard Dean to win he will have "move" (BTW it's only a myth that he is far left)closer to the center What will you do then? Vote for Nader? (but you got what you wanted Dean won the nomination)
3. Howard Dean cannot not beat Bush.

I'm so disgusted with what I see around here on a daily basis. It is OK for everyone and I mean EVERYONE to bash Clark. No one however, may say anything negative about Dean. People here can post unsubstanciated bullshit about Clark and his supporters (Clark supporters steal from the Democratic Party) but when a poster posts something truthful (published) about Dean (speaking specifically about the poll numbers on Sunday from Reuters and Yahoo!) all of the Dean supporters went APE SHIT.

Why is that? Why do Dean supporters get so upset when they hear anything negative about Dean? Doesn't he make any mistakes? Hasn't he done anything wrong? Can't you at least take an objective look at Dean? So wha'ts going in here, is it because you are young and still idealistic? Do you still believe that you can have your heads in the clouds and work in the world as it is today? I thought that also, till I got out there and had to pay the house note, the guy to cut the grass, my property taxes. Artists can be noble but they still have to eat, pay for supplies, and pay Rent & utilities. Eventually reality rears its ugly head. (My ex is a photographer so I know a lot about the "arty farty" who want to suffer for the cause routine.)

I'm getting the impression that if you don't support Dean then you're not liberal enough for DU. OK, I'll buy that. You want DU the way it used to be? Well you can have it, I'm done as of today. Just know that you're no different than the radical right intolerant of others, intolerant of new ideas, unable to compromise, unwilling to change.

It's such a shame when such a small group can push the majority out of the Party.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

67. Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean is the only ticket for success in my book...

..and I really don't care who is the VP in that combination, but Dean's polling advantage and money advantage suggests Clark can not catch up. What I find silly is that both of these men agree on 90% of what important from policy and principle prespectives, and too many DU's go back forth over what they perceive is that 10% differece.

I think you should take a deep breath and look at the macro situation.

The truth is Dean has strenghs and weaknesses, and Clark has strength and weaknesses, but Dean's weaknesses are Clark's strengths, and vice-versa. I've give money to Dean in 2 Qtrs before Clark entered, and I could give some money to Clark this Qtr, but I think Clark entered the game too late, and thus he may not be able to win the Dem nomination. However, I do not think Dean can win the general election unless Clark is VP, so the only choice is support whomever you feel is best for the country, come together after the primaries, and hope and pray like hell the end result is a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean combination. Obviously I think these two men are a symbiotic match, and just like Bush needed Cheney's gravitas as VP to win in 200, I suspect Dean needs Clark's gravitas as VP to win too.

Let's face it, It will take 110% effort from *both* of those men to beat the Bush/Cheney/Rove fear mongering camapign machine with $200 billion to bash whomever the Dem candidates are. We need to show some GOP-style unitedness in the near future or else we are going to tear down both men, which would make Rove et al very happy.

Whomever gets the most money from individual american contributors will stand the most likely chance of winning ath is point. That os not perfect, but that's the system we have. Regardless of whom is on the top, I am 100% confident that our country will be in much better hands with a President Dean or a President Clark. Heck, I wish they made "Dean and/or Clark for President" bumpersticker.

[Capn Sunshine]

75. although you fantasize well..

and i suppose that's necessary for a Clark supporter, just stating things such as "Howard Dean cannot beat Georg Bush" does not make them so.

Small groups are hardly responsible for record setting fund raising.
Small groups are hardly responsible for the largest group of volunteers within the party, outnumbering all other candidates volunteers put together.
Forget this litle online BB for a moment, open your eyes, and avail yourselves of the FACTS. We are a HUGE force, not a splinter group waving flags over an ex general.

FACT: Clark has WITHDRAWN from IA and New Hampshire. Is THIS what a campaign with momentum does?

FACT: If Clark gets the nomination, I'll work my ass off for him.

Because, unlike you and your ilk, this isn't a pissing contest to me.
I want the Democratic PARTY to win.

You still are stuck inside your little he-man Dean haters clubhouse, and get tweaky every time someone says Clark might not have the most effective organization and campaign going.

Get back to me when you've won a primary. At least that way , something will have FINALLY gone right for the General.

[returnable]

79. Say what?

"FACT: Clark has WITHDRAWN from IA and New Hampshire."

Uh, Clark is very much competing in New Hampshire. In fact, he just launched a million dollar TV ad campaign there.

Why would you present something as "FACT" when you obviously don't know what you're talking about?

[Capn Sunshine]

88. MY bad

Clark withdrew from IA.

They're still discussing a strategic withdrawal elsewhere.

[returnable]

89. Like where?

"They're still discussing a strategic withdrawal elsewhere."

Got a link?

[Scott Lee]

65. First things first: DU is NOT "radicallyt leftist" in any way.

Don't get me wrong - I surely feel more at home here than about anywhere else in the online political sphere, but let's not fool ourselves. DU would be more accurately described as left leaning centrist.

Not a slam, just a does of reality from where I see it.

[absyntheNsugar]

69. I have a prediction.....

and I'm willing to wager on this..

When all the votes are counted, it will be a very close race for the Democratic Primary...

[economic justice]

76. DU is definitely far left

I see an incredible number of posts and polls that lead me to believe that DU (as a whole) is far to the left of the Democratic mainstream....especially on social/cultural issues. A US senator can run for president and be ridiculed for being "Bush-lite" because he opposes some of this "everything goes" culture. I'm not a Lieberman guy, I'm on board with Clark, but the attacks on him are shameful. The constant attacks on our truly ELECTED Vice President come more from his opposition to the deeply ingrained cultural anarchy than on his war vote. His record is actually closer to JFK than anything remotely "Bush-lite" IMO.

[wyldwolf]

82. Actually, there is just a very vocal minority of "far lefties" here...

[economic justice]

86. And that's a very good point. <eom>

[jonnyblitz]

96. yeah I agree. its pretty conservative around here. n/t

[Pastiche423]

83. "our truly ELECTED Vice President "

Who that be?

:shrug:

[economic justice]

84. Hummm.....I wonder......

Remember Florida? It was a Gore-Lieberman ticket last I checked.

[TLM]

80. There's a real simple answer....

"..then why is Wesley Clark, a man who is called a conservative or Republican by some, doing SO well here? Yet in the general Democratic population, which is a lot more centrist than DU is, he's NOT doing so well?"


Because the call has been put out on the Clark blog to have Clark supporters flood DU. A hundred Clark supporters can overwhelm DU and seem like a massive wall of people... but in the general democratic population they're hardly a blip on the radar.

[CWebster]

87. And there has to be this contrived appearance

of the Dean-supporter-who-has-seen-the-light-of-Clark and reformed trend.

Also note, DU is manned around the clock by Clark forces who only post about Clark.

Since the Clark invasion, DU, Left-leaning Dem, has taken a Right-ward shift. What tone would a Clark nomination bring to the party?

[Mairead]

102. "Since the Clark invasion, DU has taken a Right-ward shift"

You misspelt 'Dean'.

[L.A.dweller]

103. I support Clark

because I feel that he is the candidate that can beat bush. I have never seen this Clark blog that encouraged supporters to visit DU.
The Dean supporters here at DU that are so damn paranoid are such a turn off. When they go so far as saying that Clark supporters wish for Dean to lose by a landslide just so they can say I told you so is soooooooo laughable.
In addition they criticize any poster with a post count in the single digits. Yeah, that's a great way to bring attention and seriousness to what they have to say.

[HoosierClarkie]

112. This is so absurd...

Yes I am a Clark supporter. Yes I have only posted a few times. No I have never heard of DU through the Clark Blog. I heard of it through Dean converts at Clark Meet-ups!With the premise that this is a place to get informed about politics! Not a place of bashing the newcomers!Isn't that discrimination! No I have never voted before. That is the point! Clark is bringing people in to politics that have never cared before! Yes some people in DU act like it is a secret club only caring about opinions of the few. "Free Speech" my ass! Don't you people want converts! Are Clark supporters not allowed to be heard. I think THAT is a conspiracy! The only payment I am getting is the satisfaction that my three kids will have a better future in this country if people speak up!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

114. THANK YOU!

You make DU and the Clark campaign a better place. I hope you post more often and don't let the haters get you down.

:toast:

DTH

[L.A.dweller]

115. Welcome Sarah

I cringe when i read the criticism against those with a low post count as being infiltrators. Give me a break!

[maddezmom]

107. my only comment

way to make newbies feel welcome. :(

[lastliberalintexas]

110. Frustrated opinion rant only

I'm sorry for you that I am exercising my right to choose which candidate I will vote for in the primary. You have the right to your opinion that Clark is the best person to serve as our nominee, just as I have the right to my opinion that he is not.

However, don't expect to win many converts by simply asserting your opinion. Offer people FACTS concerning Clark's candidacy instead, and you will be serving your candidate much better.

[ACK]

111. Dean it is not really that liberal... Clark is not either...

The real deal if he had voted against the authorization giving the president the power to go to war was Kerry. If he had run a campaign as exciting or vital as Dean... if .. if .. if.

The man voted left of center but not Kuicinch left for years.

But his waffling and lack of excitement in his own damn campaign (it just felt that way ok) pretty much screwed him over hard.

Oh well...

If Dean found a new word instead of "re-regulation" (oh my god the repukes wil have a field day with that) and backed off that I am going to repeal all the tax cuts (targetted tax cuts was what Gore was for and this just gives the Repubs a chance to pull out the old standard tax and spend nonsense), I would vote for the man in a heartbeat.

Right now, I found myself torn between him and Clark.