So, if ANY Dem could beat Bush...(see poll)

then 'electability is NOT a factor.

"A Zogby poll released today shows that when asked if George Bush deserves re-election, only 46% of Americans said yes and a narrow majority, 47%, said it is time for someone new. The poll, with a margin of error of +/- 3%, on a generic 2004 ballot between Bush and a Democratic candidate, Bush received 47% of support, and a Democratic candidate received 44%, putting the Bush and a Democratic candidate in a statistical dead heat still a year before the Democratic candidate is selected. The second poll, released yesterday by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and published in National Journal's Hotline showed should the 2004 election be held today, those planning to reelect Bush had dropped to 42%."

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=5528


So why are you people who are worried about 'electability' still holding out on Kucinich? The only thing keeping us from electing someone that will do what most of us want is our collective fear of losing, it's time to stop worrying about losing and start thinking about winning.

I don't support Kucinich b/c I don't think he'd be a very good president/leader. Don't want to debate, but that's my opinion.

He had me momentarilly, but lost me along the way.

~Peace to those that support him though :)

I'm glad Kucinich is running, and I'm happy that he's getting his message out, but I don't think he'd be a good president. (And my views are closer to Dean anyway.)

this is because about a week ago I ran a poll (about 300 votes) asking peoples opinions of Kucinich. In that poll around 37% supported him, and then the second choice (of 5) was 'I agree with him but support someone else because he's unelectable', which took 38%. So overall, without electability Kucinich had a 75% support rate. Of course I do realize that there are others who don't support him for other reasons. This is just aimed at those who take the false notion of 'electability' into account.

Answer: It's Joe. Al isn't running, and Joe was the one who got the ticket more votes than W.......So you can poll til you're blue in the face. The only man who can beat Bush is Lieberman.

Are you serious?
You don't think Clark could beat the Chimp?
You don't think Dean or Kerry could beat him, either? LIEBERMAN? What are you smoking, I need me some of that.

Answer- Nobody who doesn't live in Connecticut.

Joe didn't win that election, Al Gore did. If you think people vote for the vice president you're in dream land.

The only man sure to get the Greens 10% of the vote is Lieberman.

And funny that a Lieberman supporter would say to ignore polls, since it's the law of the poll that Joe says commands us to become Republican clones so we may worship at the altar of victory. To bad it only costs us our souls.

Joe is very progressive on many fronts. He is in favor of war, so mind-numbed people use that as a reason to label him a 'GOP clone'
As for 2000, Gore was a loose cannon out there. You never what gaffe he'd make next. Lieberman was the reasoned stabilizing influence and well as the respite from any Clinton baggage Gore was carrying. Had the order been reversed, Lieberman/Gore would have won handily as expected. As it is, Joe is the only active person in politics who has outpolled George W. Bush.

Yes, Lieberman is pro-war, one of MANY knocks on his supposed 'progressive' record. There's also his support of Operation TIPS (Stasi anyone?). His constant whoring for the insurance and military industries. His complete inaction on Enron because he whored himself out to the accounting industry. His desire to shove religion down everyones throats. His pro-censorship stance. Yeah, quite the progressive powerhouse. I especially love how he hangs out with war criminals like Kissinger at the Nixon fan club.

Joe Lieberman has proven his credibility as a progressive by his nomination to represent the Democratic Party as its vice president in 2000. He has demonstrated his electability being part of the team that outpolled George Bush. People like Kucinich and Dean, like Tsongas and McCain before them become media darlings for awhile with their zingy one-liners before quickly going down in flames. One lesson we surely have learned by now is....you don't win with flame-throwers who aren't taken seriously. You win with gravitas. You win with a proven winner. Joe is the only one in the field who even approaches that. Not trying to be unkind, but we need to become educated from the past. We sometimes have displayed an affinity to throwing away our precious vote on an unelectable candidate. Sure we'd all like progressive change. But it comes incrementally, and usually through someone who displays confidence, maturity, and seriousness.

Lieberman has all the appeal of a cold, greasy lamb chop. He'd be a vast improvement over the Bush crime gang, but still, folks, let's be real about the mans anticharisma.

Like it or not, the way a candidate presents himself counts very much. A pious but lackluster candidate is not going to bet Bush's carefully cultivated "aw shucks ma'am" folksiness.

We need someone who will stand up to Bush and point out how this country would be better off without a conservative in office. As far as I can tell, Joe is not that candidate.

By the way, the answer to your question is Al Gore.

I dont think so. Joe has as much of a chance of winning the primary or Presidency as Strom Thurmond has of having an erection.

Joe is not a Democrat anyway...hes a Repug pretending to be a Dem.

And not to many people(okay, NOBODY) will pick which ticket they'll vote for based on the Veep candidate.

If you truly think that Lieberman can beat Bush, and that he is the only one who can, you're not dreaming, you're insane.

BTW- If Holy Joe is the eventual Dem candidate in 2004, he's going to have to beat Bush without my vote. I will NEVER, for any reason, cast another vote for Joe Lieberman. Once was too much already.

Why not go ahead and register GOP, Miltie?

someone already said it :P

who has something to say about the original post, instead of falling for Lieberman trolling?

Clearly you are unaware of the truth about polls that pit a named candidate against an unnamed candidate. In such polls, the unnamed party candidate always does better than any particular named candidate of the same party. The reason is because there are a large number of people out there who are unhappy with Bush and want somebody else. When you ask these people who they would vote for, Bush or and unnamed Democrat, the project everything that they want in a candidate into the unnamed Democrat. As a result, Bush loses. However, they minute you put a real person in the unnamed slot, these people are forced to evaluate a real person with real positions (that often are different from their own), and the numbers shift slightly back to Bush.

As a Kucinich supporter, it may shock you to learn that when people are polled about whether or not they prefer an unnamed Democrat to Bush, most are not thinking of a guy like Kucinich. They are projecting everything they want into a President--a projection which varies wildly from person to person. In a real head to head poll against Bush, Bush would swamp the guy on name recognition alone.

unless they were REALLY unhappy with the named party. As such, there's plenty of animosity to work with to get the person of our choice in the White House.

True at the moment Bush would beat Kucinich in a poll because, as you said, of name recognition. However, with Kucincih as nominee, it would provide the perfect contrast of what these people hate about Bush and could lead to an avalanche of support.

LIKE, DUH!

Most when they see that think of the ideal Democratic candidate not the Republican Democratic ones we had in the past like Clinton.

All of the 8 including Dean are Republican Democratic candidate's and not Democratic.

Kucinich is the exception but he cannot be elected because he does not look presidential.

They are thinking of someone like Wesley Clark as the ideal democrat.

I know what I can see and hear...and from what I can see and hear is that * is going downhill fast...I don't think he will have a chance...to much credibility has been lost throughout the entire administration.

and evil.

No wish-washy stances where the candidates "sorta" agree on the issues.

Kucinich and Bush are total opposites.

Give America a choice and support Dennis Kucinich!

www.kucinich.us

"when asked if George Bush deserves re-election, only 46% of Americans said yes and a narrow majority, 47%, said it is time for someone new"

I believe ANY Dem is BETTER than bush, but I don't believe ALL of the current candidates can BEAT bush.

Having said that, I'll support who ever the nominee is.

no one would vote for him.

I think a majority of Americans would get behind the other 8 vs Bush, although not me...who votes for who resembles my beliefs...not what party affiliation you belong to.

an unnamed Dem would get 44%. That's definitely a good place to start. If they got the chance to hear what DK will do, and how he's going to make this the country it always should have been his support would go through the roof. Believe it or not, but I've actually been able to convince my Bush supporting grandfather to support Kucinich, based on his NAFTA/WTO stance and his plan for rebuilding manufacturing and infrastructure. DK is not an ultra-liberal or even radical, he is simply using commmon sense. It just seems radical because we've had crooked sell-out politicians all our lives and don't know what to do when we actually find one that supports the people instead of placating them.

I'd handicap this way:

Edwards, Kerry or Clark-- wins close to big
Graham-- wins or has it stolen again
Dean-- win or loss
Lieberman-- loss
Gephardt--loss
Sharpton-- big loss
Kucinich-- big loss
Braun-- big loss

(Obligatory caveat: I will support the nominee...)