Bush2000 "50M.", BUT Gore2000 51M. + Nader2000 3M. = 2004 No Brainer!!!

[dpbrown]

If we beat Bush 50 million to 51 million last time, when we add in the Green voters we'll beat him 54 million (or more) to less than 50 million this time.

It's simple math.

That, maybe more than any other reason, is why we should support the best candidate poised to bring the progressive vote together.

Bush got 50 million last time and Gore got 51 million and Nader got 3 million - and Bush lost then.

There's no way Bush'll get 50 million this time, because he's pissed off too many people who crossed over to vote for him.

The best way to overcome any advantage the Republicans will have in Black Box election-stealing is to support a candidate who will bring together the fracture on the left, getting all Nader's 3 million votes, and most of Gore's 51 million votes - with Bush getting less than 50 million no matter how you slice it, that's the most secure way to create the vote-spread we'll need to take this election decisively.

Greens and Democrats together have a chance to support the candidate best positioned to win the election, overcoming even the manipulation of the paperless Black Box Voting Machines.

Right now, there's only one Democratic candidate for the nomination who holds these positions:

1. An end to the death penalty.
2. Universal single-payer for what we're paying now.
3. UN in, US out of Iraq.
4. Rescinding Halliburton's war profiteering contracts.
5. Making the Pentagon accountable to the taxpayers and cutting bloat.
6. Demilitarizing space.
7. Ending the failed Star Wars once and for all.
8. Unilaterally withdrawing from failed trade pacts like NAFTA.

There are some other differences, but these are probably the major ones.

Before 16 years of being beaten down by Reagan, Bush, and Bush the Stunted, these positions may well have appeared to be traditional liberal Democratic positions.

But with the failure of the DLC to hold the House through eschewing traditional populist Democratic positions, followed up with a failure to hold governorships, and then the failure to hold the Senate, the Democrats have found themselves increasingly held hostage to the election consultant mantra of the 40/40/20 rule (a recent article called it at 31/31/31, which I thought was interesting).

The belief that there is a 40(31)% "base" on either side, both Republican and Democrat, and there is a 20(31)% "middle" of wishy-washy "independents" that represent the only important battleground is what has driven the rise of a third-party "movement" on the "left."

Around 50 million people voted for Bush in 2000 and he lost. Closer to 51 million voted for Gore. Eighty-million or so who could vote, didn't. Nader got about three percent.

So that makes the mushy-middle worth 20 million, the Greens worth 3 million, and the disaffected, cynical, or unreachable worth 80 million.

The key for the election consultants is to keep it as close as possible, so neither side gets more than about half of the mushy middle - so that's 10 million on a side.

So the Greens are, right now, worth about one-third of the value of the mushy-middle "independents," but the wild card is still the non-voters.

There's no way Bush'll get 50 million this time - he's pissed off too many Republicans of conscience, conservative Democrats, Libertarians, and everyone else who "took a chance" or crossed over to vote for him in 2000. That makes it easy, doesn't it. If everyone who voted for Gore plus the people Bush's pissed off vote Bush out, he's history, right?

Well, not quite. Georgia is 100% Black Box, no paper trail voting boxes now. Florida's well on its way. Nebraska. Some California counties. More. Oh, and VNS has disbanded. So - no exit polling, and no recounts. Hmmmm...starts to look fishy, doesn't it.

But that's not the point.

The numbers of invigorated voters who counted themselves to the "left" of the Democrats was, in 2000, when people were warned not to "vote their conscience," fully one-third of the "take" that Democrats got from sniping off former Republicans and people who couldn't make their mind up out of a wet paper bag in the "mushy middle."

There is a Democratic candidate who's already been endorsed by Winona LaDuke, Green Party 2000 VP candidate (I met her, she's real nice).

Yet Democrats are telling the party faithful, and the Greens, to "get in line" because the only thing that matters is getting Bush out - ignoring the fact that whoever the Democratic nominee is has only to get "most" of Gore's voters and a few of *either* the disenchanted, but enthusiastic voters who voted for Nader, *or* a similar number of the mushy middle voters who went for Bush last time.

Ten million "maybes" versus three million "for sures" with an eighty million voter wild card.

The party machinery is churning away, AOL executives and the Vermont power company bloc are giving generously to their favorite "preserve the status quo it's all we can hope for but TAKE BACK AMERICA" candidate, and it looks like the the three million (probably more when you count the people who "got in line" in 2000) voters who enthusiastically vote for what just a decade or so ago were traditional Democratic values, are going to be left high and dry again in 2004.

But angry, well-off, white Democrats are touting, and the bought-and-paid-for Republican media are buzzing about, the status quo candidate on the cover of national magazines who's poised to land a "knockout blow" any day now to the rest of the candidates.

Some of the three million or more Green voters will toe the line this time, no doubt. Some of the 10 million obtainable mushy-middle voters will vote for the Democratic candidate, no doubt. What will happen with the 80 million nonvoters? Would they be more motivated to vote for a candidate who offered a real change from Bush? Or will they be more motivated to vote for an angry white man from a tiny 98% white state whose re-elect percentage as Governor dropped from a high of 74% in 1992 to barely 50% in 2000? Someone who apparently couldn't even keep the attention of the mostly white folks in his own home mostly white state.

The choice is between going for the guaranteed three million Green votes plus pulling a Ventura or a Wellstone with just 10% of the 80 million nonvoters, or pursuing focus group politics to nudge those finicky 10 million of the obtainable mushy-middle "independents" into the Democratic column with fear of Bush as the only real motivator.

I think the fact that Bush can't possibly get 50 million again, plus the possibility of motivating the "majority liberal" America with some of the good old-fashioned red meat of traditional liberal Democratic planks or unadulterated populism (Wellstone/Ventura), makes it worth nominating a candidate who most represents the "anti-Bush" but who has the best ideas about what to "do" with America once we "take it back."

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any danger in embracing issues currently only finding favor with Green voters. And I don't think it's safe to assume that the Greens won't run a candidate, if the Democrats choose one who's anathema to those issues. I think a "real" populist would get all those Green voters plus enough of the nonvoters *and* a bunch of the mushy middle independents, to make the election a walk.

That said, I find it absolutely astounding that the Democrats seem predisposed to nominating a "player" and then leaning on the Greens to get in line and shut up (and hoping enough people stay home so their formula works).

It'd be so easy just to join together and "take back America" for real populism, but it doesn't seem like that's what the angry white Democrats want. Too bad, too. We could use a change.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[AP]

1. Not that simple.

Without the Greens, how many people wouldn't have voted at all.

Perhaps some Republicans voted only becuase Nader got them worked up. Perhaps a lot of Democrats voted Gore only because they Nader scared them into voting. Perhaps a lot of Nader voters would have stayed home. Perhaps a lot of people who switched from Nader to Gore in the last week never would have even thought about voting in the first place if Nader hadn't gotten them hooked.

There's really no way to know what people would have done if Nader hadn't participated, and it's harder to project what would happen in 2004 based on 2000.

[dpbrown]

3. Nader being in the race would be more likely to keep Republicans home

It's simple.

Republicans decided that having Nader in the race benefitted Bush. That's obviously why there was discussion on boards like this about Republicans donating to Nader's campaign.

And even if Nader was reaching disenchanted voters, those voters become part of the wild-card pool anyway, never, ever part of the Republican pool.

Gore got the highest vote total a Democratic candidate ever got in the history of the United States. Not many people predisposed to vote Democratic "stayed home."

The people who voted for Nader were those who voted for an alternative to the Democrats even though they were told not to "waste your vote" or "help elect Bush." Those people vote. That much is obvious. They're committed to their views.

In fact, it's more likely that people who wanted to vote for Nader stayed home or voted for Gore instead. That means they are voters who will be reached by running a populist or someone who can get the backing of the Greens.

The bottom line is we only won by a little under a million votes in 2000. If we want to win by four million instead, we should nominate Kucinich.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[nocreativename]

7. you also forgot the

incumbent factor bush is there bush has money a lot of people don't know any better

[a_lil_wall_fly]

19. Very true..AP

If they help out to get Bush out in '04. Then guess what will they be voting in '06 or '08--the Democratic party--I think not.

It is the Democratic party that will have to do some serious soul searching on how we can get back those lost members without using fear and loathsome tactics.

The Greens and Libertarians will go back and be loyal to those parties until the Democratic party gets its head out of its collective arses.

[Brucey]

2. But there are a lot of apolitical voters, CA proved that.

There are many who don't care or know about issues. Image almost always is the most important variable. All parties try to make their candidate have a good image and the others have bad images (e.g., Dukakis). Which candidate has the best image, regardless of positions on issues? Which candidate will appeal to the apolitical voter, the way Raygun did, Clinton did, Shwarzengroper did, Ventura did, etc.?

[dpbrown]

5. There are a lot of people who vote "values", Wellstone proved that

Both Wellstone and Ventura won by bringing nontraditional voters out to the polls and upsetting the political applecart.

That's the chance we have now. We can add the Greens into the column, reducing the number of people in the middle that are needed, and put a candidate out there who is more likely to resonate with nontraditional voters by hewing to a clear, progressive line.

This is less risky than it sounds, even, because Bush has pissed so many people off who crossed over to vote for him in 2000. There's no way Bush'll get 50 million again this time.

There are tons of people ready to eject Bush from Al Gore's house. We already know that.

We'll be giving the highest number of "for sure" voters an option they can happily vote for by nominating the best populist who espouses the most traditional liberal Democratic positions, and by dropping all or most of the Greens right into the Democratic column.

The only candidate who can make that happen is Dennis Kucinich.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[mistertrickster]

4. You Kucinich people are really getting desperate.

Look, the beauty of our system is that if he has the message that people want to hear, they'll support him.

DK had his chance, his spark isn't catching fire. You can't blow dead embers back to life. (editted to avoid mixed metaphor, heh)

Me, I'd like to see Gore run but that isn't going to happen either. I've learned to deal with reality.

[no name no slogan]

6. It's still FAR from over

I don't know where you get off saying DK "had his chance". IIRC, the first caucus is still two months off, as is the first primary.

The only one who's definately "out" at this point in time is Bob Graham, and that's because he officially dropped out. To say that somehow DK is out right now reeks of arrogance of the type the Neo-Cons have been using on the American people for the past three years.

Unless you're the fat lady and you're singing, we still have a LOOONG way to go.

[dpbrown]

8. The analysis should be whether Dems+Greens is worth more than Dems+Indies

I think that's the point.

I mean, conventional wisdom is that the Independent (generally seen to be the people in the "middle") voters are the ones who are essential.

But the polling shows that less than 50% right now will vote for Bush in 2004.

That means we already have the Indies.

So what about the Greens and the other groups?

Those are the ones that we risk losing by nominating a status quo candidate.

Discuss.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[AP]

9. I bet there are 10 indies for every 1 Green you could convince to vote for

the Dem.

I bet it's cheaper to reach those indies than it is to reach the Greens.

[dpbrown]

10. I would then argue we've already reached the "indies"

Bush got 50 million and lost in 2000, and he's pissed off every "indie" who voted for him, therefore the only votes the Dems need to get are the Greens - and there's a Democrat running for the nomination that the Greens have indicated they can support.

So how many "indies" would vote for Bush, even though he's betrayed them and their issues, if the Democrats nominated a candidate whose platform is:

1. End the Death Penalty
2. Universal Health Care for what we're paying now
3. Farmers into Energy Production and distribution
4. Unilaterally withdrawing from trade agreements that don't work
5. Making the Pentagon accountable to the taxpayers.

I think that's the analysis that will lead to a more realistic discussion of "viability" or "electability."

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[genius]

13. The indies are supporting Dennis

Many decided to become independent because of the movement of the Democratic Party to the right. Dennis is bringing them back in massive numbers. But they are not being polled because they are in the process of or, will by election, re-register as Democrats.

[redqueen]

11. People like him because of his stand on issues.

Hopefully he'll get some attention because of his love life, and people will just happen to figure out they agree with his policies.

If they do, they do. I think, if they do find out his policy stands, that they will.

Time will tell.

But I do find it a bit arrogant when people declare their opinions to be facts (e.g. he has no chance, he had his chance, people don't agree w/ him, etc.) Most people haven't heard of him or his policy stands, so we don't really know.

I could just as easily (and as stupidly) assert that Dean is a liar so he has no chance of beating * because both candidates will be known liars and most people go with the Devil they know. Makes no sense, right? Right.

[genius]

12. Excellent post. Everyone should take this to heart

Otherwise we are in for four more years.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Ahem.

Chimp= $193,000,000 in 2000.

Gore= $132,000,000

Nader= $8,000,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/index/AllCands.htm

What's the point again?

[dpbrown]

15. According to your numbers, the point is Bush outspent Gore and still lost

What was the point you were trying to make?

The election was close enough to steal last time, and Republicans have gotten better at stealing elections since then.

"Moderates" (some of whom possibly have other motivations), would have us believe that the best vote spread will be obtained by alienating the progressives once again.

The numbers show, however, that given the 2000 election demographics, and election consultant projections as to category of voters, that the dedicated Green voter total was worth at least one-third the total of those who could be considered "independents" (and of those, it's no where near certain that all "independents" are choosing between "conservative" and "less conservative" as election consultants would have us believe).

In fact, it takes just one adjustment in the 2000 numbers, splitting the "independents" between those who were "more" conservative than Gore, and those who were "less" conservative than Gore, to show that it will continue to be the progressives who will determine the outcome of future elections, and not the wishy-washy (but shouting loudly) "independents."

If half, or 5 million of the independents who voted Democratic in 2000 would have rather had a more "conservative" Democrat but voted for Gore, and half, or 5 million of the independents who voted Democratic in 2000 would have rather had a more "liberal" Democrat but voted for Gore, then the Democratic "take" from conservatives was worth only 5 million votes.

But add the 5 million "independents" who voted for Gore but who would have rather had a more liberal candidate to a substantial number of those who voted for Nader rather than Gore or Bush, and the potential "take" for Democrats ("us" in case anyone's doubting my loyalties - I'm a Democrat), and the numbers approach 8 million - the number is now worth more than the "take" from just getting conservative independents.

The "conservative" independents, especially here, push the idea very (some would say too) strongly, but the numbers don't necessarily add up.

Even if the Democrats sacrifice the 5 million voters who would have rather had a more "conservative" candidate but voted for Gore in 2000, they will pick up more than enough to nearly double that loss by picking up the Greens and the independents who would have rather had a more "liberal" candidate than Gore but who voted for Gore in 2000.

I think the idea that the nation is predominantly "conservative" is hogwash.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Whoops.

I was thinking you were referring to dollars, not votes. My bad.


What was my point again? :D

[dpbrown]

17. LOL - I think your point was....

Progressives Rule, Conservatives Drool!

:D

[loyalsister]

18. You forgot to subtract

the MILLIONS of voters who would be alienated by a "patchwork candidate" far left radical\religious right winger combined.
I'd vote for him, but it would make me sick to have to. There's something about him that seems like pure nonsense. He seems like a shrill whiner on the stage with the other candidates, then he comes up with his patchwork of positions that don't seem to fit together very well.
Against the civil liberty violations in the patriot act- starts to sound like he respects the constitution. Supports flag burning amendment. Stop!
Calling for single payer health care - sounds like he's truly concerned about peoples health but voted to ban stem cell research. Stop!
When you come across that, it would appear the candidate has trouble seeing the bigger picture. Thus, the anti-choice voting receord that went on for far too long. That was not a matter of a single belief. That was a symptom of an inability to see the bigger picture. That is quite characteristic of people who are very religious. Everything is related their their emotional reactions to what they are thinking about rather than the variables and possibilities related to the actual situation.