andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2008-01-02 05:29 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

Calling all Americans

So, what's wrong with Dennis Kucinich then?

Except, of course, that he's too good to be elected in the US.
Threaded | Flat

[identity profile] despotliz.livejournal.com 2008-01-02 06:15 pm (UTC)(link)
He did say he was considering Ron Paul as a running mate, which is a bit crazy.

[identity profile] asim.livejournal.com 2008-01-02 06:17 pm (UTC)(link)
he's too good to be elected in the US.
Well, yes, and that's the point, for me at least.

I'd love to vote/promote for someone who I like, yet I am kind of a Centrist, and also know that snowball's chance in hell is a point against him, and against me for him, sadly. Call me cheap and easy, but I've spent enough time around fringe politics to know how much of an echo chamber of horrors working such campaigns can be (see: Nader, Ralph).

Indeed, one of the reasons I enjoy supporting Obama is the mix of people doing it, the energy they're bringing, and the encouragement (not just tolerance) of grassroots involvement.

[identity profile] aberbotimue.livejournal.com 2008-01-02 06:17 pm (UTC)(link)
duno, whats wrong with him, but look what hes got right!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Kucinich

[identity profile] robhu.livejournal.com 2008-01-02 09:24 pm (UTC)(link)
He looks far too awesome to get elected in America. They'll probably do something really stupid like elect Huckabee.

[identity profile] ipslore.livejournal.com 2008-01-02 11:22 pm (UTC)(link)
His ears are too big.

[identity profile] jccw.livejournal.com 2008-01-03 12:48 am (UTC)(link)
So, what's wrong with the liberal democrats then?

Kucinich polls under around 1% because under 1% of americans agree with him more than any other candidate or think he has the right skills to lead and get things done. Around 99% support someone else either disagree significantly or think he's not leadership material. It's not a big ears/short guy prejudice, although that probably doesn't help.

I think he's probably the only Old (i.e. New Deal/Great Society), pre-Clinton Democrat in the race. That hasn't been a winning presidential strategy in the US since 1976 (Reagan/Carter in 1980, Reagan/Mondale '84, Bush/Dukakis '88) and the equivalent hasn't been a winning strategy in the UK since before then (Thatcher/whoever). He's way more liberal than Labour (or at least its leadership) is here; he won't be president for the same reason Clare Short will never be PM.

[identity profile] balthial.livejournal.com 2008-01-04 02:12 am (UTC)(link)
I basically support his policies, although the aggregate of them looks kind of pricey. Also, I'd be more confident if he broke from liberal orthodoxy on one or two major issues - it would show he is thinking about these issues seriously and not just taking knee jerk positions. I would also feel more comfortable if he passed the torch of ultraliberalism to a new candidate every 4 years. As is, it kind of looks like he is taking standard ultraliberal postitions every year to keep his name in the papers.
Threaded | Flat