Popular vote to date

Enterprising blogger Greg Abbott counted most of the votes for the candidates to date. I say "most of the votes" because neither Iowa nor Washington reported the raw number of votes. And Maine, Virginia and Tennessee totals were not complete when the numbers were compiled.

            Total   Percent
Kerry    1,066,590   42.18
Edwards    604,991   23.92
Clark      374,470   14.81
Dean       246,754    9.76
Lieberman   87,842    3.47
Sharpton    79,862    3.16
Kucinich    36,383    1.44
Gephardt    14,094    0.56
Other        9,831    0.39
LaRouche     3,494    0.14
Braun        4,435    0.18

Am I the only person relieved that "Other" beat out LaRouche?

•  "Other"

  I'm starting to think Other might make the best president.

  by pyrrho on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:58:51 AM PDT

  •  I've always liked...

    Undecided.  He does best in the polls against Bush, and I think he's more electable.

    by teenagedallasdeaniac on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:15:25 AM PDT

    •  There used to be a candidate

      who ran as "Nobody" with winning slogans like "Nobody cares for you in Washington" and "Nobody will make a Great President"...

      It was someone fairly famous, iirc, so someone else may remember

      by pyrrho on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:16:19 PM PDT

•  Kerry

  I guess this just proves that 58% of voters think Kerry should not be the nominee.

  by DavidNYC on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:04:06 AM PDT

  •  and...

    76. % don't think Edwards should be the nominee.
    85. % don't think Clark should be the nominee.
    90. % don't think Dean should be the nominee.

    by abinns on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:14:31 AM PDT

    •  Incredible

      I would have never guessed Dean would be in single digits.

      by Sasquatch on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 08:09:31 AM PDT

      •  10%

        10% of the voters actually follow the ISSUES. Don't read the media whores. And are not swayed by this "Kerrymania".

        I'll bet the American Revolution against the British was supported by ~ 10% of the population.

        by BushHater4Dean on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:42:38 PM PDT

    •  don't want

      I think this is probably the truest statement one could make about the primaries.

      by a gilas girl on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 09:23:46 AM PDT

    •  Good 4 you

      You got that right. I love it when people try to use numbers to play games with people's heads. NOT!!

      by glennk1949 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:10:23 AM PDT

  •  Just So far

    Since most of the Democrats have just about the same opinions on almost every issue, except for Lieberman, 42% is a lot in 9 to 6 to 5 person race.

    by cpa1 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 06:04:15 AM PDT

  •  uhh...yeah, right

    And when I pick chocolate chip at my local 31 Flavors, it means I'd gag on fudge ripple.

    by jsavage on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 06:29:24 AM PDT

  •  Kidding

    It was a joke, people. Jeez, that post surely didn't deserve a troll rating. Whatever.

    by DavidNYC on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:49:45 PM PDT

•  pretty sad

  That is the saddest thing I think I have ever seen.

  I vote we kick Iowa out of the Union. It's all their fault, you know.

  by Len on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:04:53 AM PDT

  •  Would IA..

    ... be alright if Dean had scored the 1-2 punch he wanted to clinch the nomination?

    I would be our posts would be quite reversed if it were so! =)

    by abinns on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:16:32 AM PDT

  •  Would IA..

    ... be alright if Dean had scored the 1-2 punch he wanted to clinch the nomination?

    I bet our posts would be quite reversed if it were so! =)

    by abinns on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:17:29 AM PDT

    •  Well, yah!

      If it were only so. I'd be feeling a lot more hopeful right now than I am!

      by Len on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:26:19 AM PDT

    •  No, it wouldn't...

      The primary process is crap no matter who wins.  

      by Asak on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:45:46 AM PDT

  •  Thank you Iowa,

    I was a Dean supporter, against most of my "knowledgeable friends" who were Clark supporters because they thought he could get elected.  They were worried that Bush looked presidential then.  I liked Clark an awful lot too but there were some unknowns about him that could put the chance to throw Bush out of the White House in jeopardy.  There was nothing else that mattered.

    So, Dean was my guy because I hated the war, even though right after 9/11, I wanted to turn all the Arab countries into one big ashtray.  I can remember the hate that I felt until I walked into a department store and there was this adorable family of 4 who turned out to be Arab.  I came to my senses.  So people are giving Kerry a pass on the Iraq vote because he did get on the floor of the Senate and tell Bush that he needs to exhaust the UN, which Bush did not do.

    Now the tables were turned in Iowa and now Dean is the one who just might not capture the swing voting independents.  Bush is having problems now because Kerry, who was strong on national defense, is a war hero who looks and talks like a president and Bush looks like a a frog exploding childhood sociopath who has grown up but still has problems.  

    Dean may look like a president to us but WE are not enough to get him elected.  So, we should be in debt to Iowa and New Hampshire.  You cannot blame them if Dean totally imploded on his first challenge in front of REAL PEOPLE.  He did it himself not the people of Iowa who know how to vote for liberals, i.e. Tom Harkin.

    They saw him in debates, they heard him interviewed, and they saw his short fuse at rallies.  People from Iowa are as real as they are anywhere else and if citizens all across the country took the voting process as serious as Iowans do, Bush would be living in Crawford Texas now.

    This morning I heard Mike Barnacle (plagiarist and hypocrite but a talented writer), who I really can't stand anymore, on Imus and he mentioned Evan Bayh as a running mate for Kerry.  I have no idea if Kerry is considering Bayh but if he is, he will lose the election in a landslide because Bayh's voting record is only a half a shade above Zell Miller's.  I don't think Kerry is that stupid and I hope he receives messages like this from lots of people so that he and his staff knows how we feel.
    

    by cpa1 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:10:21 PM PDT

    •  Bayh

      I had thought of him, too.  He gets us Indiana.  All else being equal, we then win the election.

      by Tuffie on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:51:27 PM PDT

      •  it doesnt get us Indiana

        Indiana, by the numbers, is one of the most conservative states in the country. It went Bush by almost 20 points in 2000. It did not vote for Clinton either time.

        Even a senator from Indiana wont be enough to pull that into our camp. The only way we get Indiana is if its going to be a landslide anyway.

        by jonwillits on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:48:19 PM PDT

      •  uh uh

        Maybe you want Bayh a heartbeat from the presidency, but I don'!  He walks, talks and votes like a Republican.

        by cpa1 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:36:39 PM PDT

    •  till I am blue in the face

      You cannot blame them if Dean totally imploded on his first challenge in front of REAL PEOPLE.

      Do you have stock in Viacom or something?

      I will repeat this until I am blue in the face: if you blame Howard Dean's downfall solely on the candidate and "voter will," then you are a tool of corporate media.

      ABC, CNN, and even Fox have admitted they overplayed the Scream speech. It's too late now of course, and there is no denying Dean is not doing well in subsequent primaries, but ignoring the corporate media as a player in this election is decidedly naive.

      You had better get ready to start talking to your fellow Democrats and other swing voters about this, because the eventual nominee, Kerry or otherwise, is going to need all of us to be media bullshit-detectors.

      by zinfandel on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:58:13 PM PDT

      •  It's not my fault!

        Viacom???

        You mean Dean is not getting the nomination because of Janet Jackson's breast?

        I am as weary of Viacom, GE, Dsiney, C-Span and Fox as you are but sometimes they aren't the ones to blame.  

        Dean created a candidate that only certain people wanted.  It's that simple and the people of Iowa saw that pretty quickly.  If it was just the Iowans, everyone else would have resisted dumping him.  Many of his supporters realized he blew it, without the help of anyone else.  

        by cpa1 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:43:18 PM PDT

•  Primary Electoral Systems

  What I'd really like to know is the preference order of all the people that have voted so far. What are the second, third, fourth choices, etc....

  Ranked order voting systems are not without their flaws, but it seems to me that in choosing a Democratic nominee, we would benefit from the additional information contained in such a ranking.  

  I think I'll expand on these thoughts in a diary tomorrow.  There are many better ways to conduct a primary if one's goal is to win the general election while allowing the preferences of ALL democratic voters to influence the selection

   

  by decon on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:07:24 AM PDT

  •  Primary system

    I also wonder what would be the order of preference and the result if all these people had voted on the same day.
    In other words, if you take out of the picture the influence of other results and, to some extent, the capacity of the media to screw around to increase audience...
    I can think of at least three considerations:

    1. "Electability" wouldn't be an issue, since no candidate had a chance todemonstrate it:
    2. The campaign would be a lot more national and a lot less regional, avoiding the traditional South vs. North thing;
    3. The campaign would be less expensive. COncentrating the effort over time, would necessarily reduce the number of events/extended spending period.

    DIid I miss somenthing?

    by ilgrande2004 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:58:18 AM PDT

  •  I don't know if this is what you were getting at..

    but I'm reminded of the original plan in the Constitution for presidential elections, back when the Electoral College actually had a justifiable function:  The winner takes the presidency, and the runner-up becomes the VP.  

    It's not to hard to figure out what's wrong with having the executive branch divided up like that between opposing parties, but if you applied that idea to an intraparty primary, it might just make sense.

    First of all, the vice-president isn't supposed to just "round out the ticket," or deflect attention from the shortcomings of the presidential candidate, he's supposed to be a backup president.  If the first one breaks, we have a fully- and independently-functioning replacement to step up and take over.  NOT just a guy who'll help win the South.  NOT just a guy who'll help deflect accusations of lack of experience.  

    Anyway, I don't know if it's such a hot idea, but it'd be more democratic.

    by hz on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:54:52 AM PDT

    •  Actually, The Original Plan Was Flawed

      . . . I'm reminded of the original plan in the Constitution for presidential elections, back when the Electoral College actually had a justifiable function:  The winner takes the presidency, and the runner-up becomes the VP.

      That original plan didn't work.  It did not specify what office the electors should vote for, something that no one noticed until 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (who were running as President and VP, respectively) ended up with the same number of electoral votes.  It seems that no one had thought to specify that Electors needed to select who they wanted to be President, and who the Vice President.  An individual elector simply voted for two people, with the Presidency going to the man with the most votes, and the No. 2 vote-getter ending up as VP (assuming both received a majority).  Unfortunately, Jefferson and Burr ended up being named on exactly the same number of ballots, with each receiving a majority of the electoral votes.  The issue was decided by the House of Representatives, on the 36th ballot.  This situation was remedied by Amendment XII to the Constitution, which was ratified 5 months before the election of 1804, and created a separate vote for President and Vice President by the Electors.  I did a diary entry about the Electoral College and its awful history a number of months ago where I discussed that matter.

      One other thing that gets forgotten is that this country has gone for long stretches of time without a Vice-President.  Prior to 1968, there was no mechanism for a President to appoint a VP when the office became vacant for any reason.  John Tyler, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry Truman had no VPs until their second terms, which means in their cases that almost four years went by with no Veep.

      My feeling is that if we're going to change our form of government, something that at this point I'm definitely in favor of, we should have a parliamentary system, where the head of government is the head of the majority party or coalition of parties in the House of Representatives, and the President is a ceremonial office.  The Senate should be turned into something like the House of Lords, or the Irish Seanad, with very limited powers to initiate or amend legislation, with such legislation then resubmitted to the House, which has the final say on the wording of the law.  Here is how the Seanad is chosen:

      "The Seanad has 60 members, eleven of whom are nominated by the [Prime Minister] while the rest are elected from a number of vocational panels and by the graduates of universities."

      Since in the early days of our own country Senators were chosen by state legislatures, not the voting public, an arrangement like this is not without precedent in our own history.  This would have the effect of making election to the Senate a way of honoring persons of great distinction, allowing them some influence on government policies, and making our form of government more truly democratic.

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:31:47 PM PDT

      •  well, yeah

        It's always been obvious to me that the original plan must have been pretty badly flawed b/c they changed it awfully quick.  I've been meaning to research that issue for years but haven't done it.  Thanks for linking your diary post, saves me the research effort and I'm eager to read it.  

        Back to the subject of a primary contest, though, I think it'd be (statistically, at least) impossible for two candidates to carry exactly the same number of delegates, but even if that resulted you'd still have the brokered convention with the field cleared of all the dropouts.  And in that kind of primary, whoever ended up on the ticket of Pres/VPres would be a better reflection of the two individuals the party felt represented the best they had to offer for the top job.  As it is, we're only a heartbeat away from the office being occupied by the choice of one individual (who, granted, gets a lot of advice as to who his backup should be).  

        Again, I wish there was some way to lab-test stuff like this.  Is anybody out there running a Homunculus lab?

        Thanks again for the Electoral College info.

        by hz on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:14:56 PM PDT

        •  LOL!

          "Again, I wish there was some way to lab-test stuff like this.  Is anybody out there running a Homunculus lab?"

          Maybe Saddam has one, stashed away with his mobile bioweapons labs and traveling nuclear particle accelerators that drove around the desert just ahead of the weapons inspectors.

          Your plan is interesting, though one problem I can foresee is incompatibility between the running mates.  Imagine if in 1968, Nixon had been forced to have Rockefeller as his running mate, and Eugene McCarthy had been paired with Humphrey.  Come to think of it, 1964 would have given us a GOP ticket of Goldwater/Rocky, pretty funny when you consider how the Goldwater supporters booed when Rockefeller addressed the convention that year.  Of course, Kennedy/Johnson and Reagan/Bush were exactly what your plan would have produced had it been in effect in 1960 and 1980, and it would eliminate the Veepship going to the likes of Agnew and Quayle.

          BTW, here is one source I used for the diary entry.  I think this was another.

          "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

          by JJB on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:29:41 PM PDT

•  I'm relieved, but must admit...

  My knowledge of LaRouche is pretty limited.

  Is there a good summary somewhere in the archives? Or on someone's site?

  Also, I'm assuming Moseley Braun's numbers don't include the DC beauty pageant, right?
  

  by glyphic on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:07:30 AM PDT

  •  Re: Moseley Braun

    That's correct, the DC "primary" was not included in this tally.

    by Rockwell on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:10:47 AM PDT

    •  It was closer to a straw poll than a primary

      It was a non-binding primary, and was more of a political statement about DC statehood than picking a president.

      by antibush on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 06:55:37 AM PDT

      •  Taxation without Representation!!!!

        I still can't believe that DC isn't a state.

        --MLK

        by Melissa O on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 08:28:14 AM PDT

  •  Perennial nut job

    I can't listen to him long enough to know much about his platform, but he's quite the character.  Here's what I know:

    He's the only candidate I saw in New Hampshire who made people walk through metal detectors to get into his event.  Even Kerry didn't have metal detectors at his victory speech.  Seriously paranoid.

    He's got a heck of a lot of money.  He bought time to air his event live on New Hampshire TV.  I don't know where it comes from.

    He did time for something - I heard tax evasion, but I'm not sure.  He rails on taxes a lot, so that makes sense.

    He has a lot of college age followers who come in from all over the country and don't really socialize much.  They're pretty hostile and reminded me a little bit of the Space Monkeys from Fight Club.

    The LaRouchies like to crash other people's events and make trouble.  Some labor guys at a Lieberman event had to forcibly remove some the Space Monkeys.

    He'll run again in '08.  Bet money on it.

    by Corporate Dropout on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:14:43 AM PDT

    •  Larouche

      I can't decide if he's a Stalinist, a Fascist, a complete lunatic, or all three.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 05:47:29 AM PDT

      •  Oops

        Guess I shouldn't be ragging on a fellow Democrat, though. ;]

        by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 05:49:26 AM PDT

        •  He ain't no democrat

          Larouche and his collective bunch of whackos are number 1 on my list of needing a quick swift kick in the nuts.

          by Dave the pro on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:01:41 AM PDT

          •  Larouche

            I used to work with a guy who admired Larouche, dismissing criticisms of him as "what the government wants you to think."  My colleague was a nice, creative person, if not the most rational thinker.  It's kind of scary how seemingly ordinary people can be swayed by people like Larouche.

            by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:42:18 PM PDT

        •  re: La nut case

          ....oh, go ahead.

          by espresso on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:17:06 PM PDT

      •  No Way

        Larouche is the exact opposite of a fascist.  America is fascist.  He is not paranoid about metal detectors either.  Just ask Robert Kennedy.

        by dopies on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:43:17 PM PDT

•  it definitely does help explain

  why Edwards seems like the anti-Kerry... he may not be picking up wins, but he is certainly scoring votes and delegates.  Lets hope he pulls through.

  by math geek on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:08:43 AM PDT

•  Sayonara General Clark

  Worse - Clark just dropped out according to CNN.

  Link.

  So half of my preferred ticket just quit. Damn.

  Oh well, it was always ABB.  

  by tadlette on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:09:20 AM PDT

•  Damn

  You mean LaRouche spent around $10 million for 3,494 votes? Now, that's sad.
  http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp?sort=E

  by jfern on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:09:25 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, but

    Yeah, but at least LaRouche voters can have pride in the knowledge that each of their votes is worth $2,862. ;)

    by gimmeaD on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:31:53 AM PDT

•  Hey!

  He stole my idea!  I was just posting the same figures in one of the diaries.

  This was my percentages including Tennessee and Virginia (not counting caucuses where raw votes were not reported).

  Kerry: 42.1%
  Edwards: 25.5%
  Clark: 15.1%
  Dean: 8.4%
  Sharpton: 3.3%
  Lieberman: 2.9%
  Kucinich: 1.1%
  Other: 1.6%

  by gimmeaD on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:18:52 AM PDT

•  Followup on the numbers

  Something like states comprising 20% of the total population has voted so far.

  In 1988, Dukakis received 9 million primary votes while Jesse Jackson got 7 million.

  If you multiple Kerry's total by 5 (20% *5 =100%) he gets only around 5 million votes.

  The difference now, I think, is that there are a whole bunch more caucuses because a bunch of states didn't want to pay for primaries.

  by Adam T on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:32:52 AM PDT

•  missing numbers

  You can always estimate out the caucus numbers by finding the total estimated voters and then dividing that up by the percentage received, it would be the closest way to add them in, rather than just ignore them.

  by KTinTX on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:42:24 AM PDT

•  Does Look Bad for Dean

  Although his best state, and one of the more populous so far, was WA, so of course we'll never know how many people would have "voted" for him if there had been a primary.

  And we may never know the final tally in ME.

  by sdf on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:43:23 AM PDT

  •  what went wrong in Maine????

    And why didn't Kucinich receive any delegates?

    by Adam T on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:45:29 AM PDT

•  La Rouche

  No, Kos, you're not alone.

  by ilgrande2004 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:49:26 AM PDT

•  Silly

  That's a pretty worthless statistical exercise because you have bigger states going for Kerry and smaller states going for Dean... while there are definitely other bigger states where Dean has stronger support than 10%.  That stat is more just about what states have happened to vote so far than anything else.

  by tunesmith on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:49:52 AM PDT

  •  the stat makes sense

    Because "votes" don't mean much til you happen to vote...

    by jsavage on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 06:34:28 AM PDT

•  Letter to the editor

  I have to admit that these past few weeks have been the realization of my worst nightmares.

  I just happened upon this letter to the editor. It's from The Boston Globe, John Kerry's hometown paper. I want to share it because it pretty much sums up how I am feeling right now...

  THE UNFOLDING of the Democratic primaries illustrates what's wrong with American politics and why less than 50 percent of people in this country vote. We now have a front-runner, John Kerry, who for years did not stand up to the Republicans in power, did not take a leadership role in the Senate, and whose campaign was faltering because he couldn't come up with an inspiring message and vision of his own.

  In the past few weeks John Kerry has campaigned skillfully. He has become the front-runner by attacking President Bush's policies despite having trusted and supported the president on Iraq and the No Child Left Behind Act.

  Ironically, he has coopted the language, message, and vision of the original front-runner, Howard Dean. The backing of the good old Democratic insider machine has brought him back from the abyss. Even his message to President Bush -- "Bring it on!" -- is not in his own words.

  Is John Kerry the real deal? Not exactly. If Democrats nominate him, not only will we have more politics as usual, but we will not beat George W. Bush.

  VANESSA L. RULE

  Somerville

  Thanks, Vanessa.
  

  by Len on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 05:09:41 AM PDT

  •  now now

    my dog would beat bush in a head-to-head election this fall. i love howard dean and donated generously to his campaign, but i think it's poor sportsmanship to blame the referees or the media for kerry's performance. he has outpolled dean 5 to 1.

    give credit where credit is due. kerry has won intense and competitive elections all his life, and, as we saw in late january, he had more in the tank than dean then it mattered most.

    dean will get a lot of credit for helping the democrats to find their voice, but i can't express how wrong it is to begrudge kerry what he has deserved.

    i'll try another analogy. it's like the second string athlete complaining about the first string athlete after getting beat out for the starting spot. we should countenance talk like, "he beat me out, but he was cheating, and our team will never win now." that's childish and selfish thinking.

    don't get so wrapped up in inter-party conflict that you fail to keep your eyes on the prize: democrats winning the white house, democrats winning congress.

    please, friend, wait and see. if kerry wins the nomination, howard dean will look you in the eye and tell you that kerry is a formidable campaigner and a good man who deserves your vote.

    by RowdyBrown on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:58:43 AM PDT

    •  people deserve more

      you missing the most important point of the letter - THE PROCESS IS CORRUPT.  to tell me that kerry deserves credit for excelling in a corrupt process is not going to convince (and may actually draw resentment) from those who want a more fundamental change than replacing bush.  as much as i despise bush, i believe people have polluted their minds with the abb mind set.  if electability is the watermark for nominating a candidate, then WE WILL LOSE. not only is the logic faulty for a general election, but this criterion deprives the democratic process its most vital strength - the issues that bind us to health and prosperity of this country.  to argue that kerry is is not as bad as bush is insulting.  my principles have a face - it's not abb, it's dean.

      by cracklins on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:46:14 AM PDT

      •  i see

        you mean we lose if kerry wins. gotcha. yes, the process is not perfect. i think it is better than the process in most countries, and i think the political history of the US is remarkably good and stable compared to the same of other nations. i doubt that's good enough for you. i respect your view. peace.

        by RowdyBrown on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:01:06 PM PDT

        •  how sad

          "you mean we lose if kerry wins."
          if i cared for sarcasm rather than a discussion, i'd visit a conservative blog.

          in your brazen embracement of abb, you cannot even fathom the depth of people's desire for someone more than the anti-bush.  i am involved in this nomination process for two reasons: (1) a responsible citizen; (2) the race isn't over yet.    i have faith in the system such that it can be improved and will not give up that fight, yet all you can see is someone who won't jump on the bandwagon.  somehow people like me are seen as myopic?  fanatic followers of a lost cause.

          "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world". Anthropologist, Margaret Meade

          ... although i would contend that those who want a fundamental change in the system is far larger than what is appreciated.  cynical views like yours will simply keep the majority silent.

          you end your comment with what maybe interpreted as a congenial note, but since you opened in sarcasm, it comes across as condescension.

          no thanks.

          by cracklins on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:19:28 PM PDT

          •  no sarcasm

            that wasn't sarcasm. i never intended to wound.

            by RowdyBrown on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:48:44 PM PDT

          •  i'll vote for dean

            i will vote for dean in our primary. dean is my man, then kucinich, then the rest i like equally. in my opinion, they are all great choices.

            i respect your view that kerry represents not as great a change, and that dean is worth fighting for. i disagree with your end assessment, however, that kerry winning the nomination is much less great than dean winning the nomination.

            i would guess that i rate dean as high or nearly as highly as you do, but that i rate kerry much higher than you do. maybe i am more jaded about the corruption in politics, and abide more of it than i should. it's cynical to abide it at all. you are right.

            also, i agree that some of the tone of my posts to you were condescending, esp. the now now title, and i apologize for that. i had another title in there that i didn't like and changed at the last second.

            by RowdyBrown on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:03:48 PM PDT

    •  hang on

      Your dog deserves to beat Bush in a head-to-head election, but even if he makes it past the primaries (is there a draft movement? they'd better hurry up or they'll miss Super Tuesday), he's still got two words to get past:  October Surprise.  

      We've seen how little it takes something like 10-15% of the voting population to change overnight their opinion of Bush's performance; you and your dog had better believe that RoveCo has noticed that, too.  

      I mean, these are really fickle times we live in, you know?

      by hz on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:08:59 PM PDT

      •  my dog

        is remarkably smart and a great communicator

        by RowdyBrown on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:47:30 PM PDT

  •  No thanks, Vanessa

    I've had it with the gloom-and-doom crowd that seems to take pleasure in the thought of a Bush second term.

    Your guy lost.  Get over it.

    by Go Vegetarian on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:43:36 AM PDT

•  Larouche a Democrat???

  How can Larouche run in any Democratic primaries?
  He's to the right of Satan.  As I understand it.

  by Merkin on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:04:46 AM PDT

  •  Larouche is a moderate

    Larouche is a moderate; he is to the right of Satan but he is to the left of Bush.
    

    by i dunno on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 09:42:12 AM PDT

    •  Larouche is a centrist

      because he's a far-right loony and a far-left loony at the same time.  If you can believe it, I think Larouche would be even more extreme than Bush.  I'm glad we won't have to choose between the two of them, because I'd be forced to leave the country.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:51:43 PM PDT

•  load of crap

  What's the significance of adding up votes of a number of contests during which two (one major, one minor; scale debatable) contestants dropped out?

  I won't even mention the fact that those happened over quite a long period of time, so the whole 'momentum' thing isn't even reflected.

  What's the point? Is this the first installment of "Fuzzy Math Wednesday"?
  

  by Felix Deutsch on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 09:25:06 AM PDT

  •  Preaching to the choir?

    And does it really matter to examine these stats since those who vote in the Democratic primary are probably going to vote Democratic in November anyway, regardless of who gets the nomination?

    by L Schoen on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:05:34 AM PDT

•  Get it over with!!

  The sooner this is over the better. It's going to take every minute of the rest of this yr. to beat Bush and his criminal gang. I just hope Sen. Kerry has his mud proof suit on because BushCo is going to start slinging it in every direction soon enough. God, I hate Bush!!

  by glennk1949 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

•  Never Deans Fault

  The more I hear the Deaniacs talk about how the reason Dean is doing poorly in the process is, its everyone elses fault, or the establishment is against him, or the media don't like him and other various excuses rather then he ran a terrible campaign and made silly mistakes. They begin to remind me of the right wing and their liberal media, etc etc arguments and how they never are responsible for anything its always someone else or some other group etc that is to blame.
  For crying out loud Deaniacs quit crying and start acting like DEMS and not like closet Bush operatives, which your actions are starting to resemble, by tearing down the other candidates.
  From your comments, some of the other candidates don't seem worthy of your support, if Dean isn't the candidate.
  I thought we were in this together and had a common goal as DEMS, but I guess from some of the reactions to the voting results some in this process aren't as unified as we need to be to succeed in Nov.
  The GOP thanks you for what you are doing, and they are very grateful.
  

  by PC on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:34:45 AM PDT

  •  you better get ready for a rocky ride

    The Wurlitzer is already taking aim at Kerry. I've seen no fewer than three negative front page Sunday New York Times articles in the past couple of weeks.

    Few Dean supporters deny that the Dean campaign made mistakes, but without media participation in the process as an influence rather than an objective reporting service, those mistakes might not have cost so dearly.

    People who take the attitude that it's all Dean's fault are missing the fact that the corporate media filter a great deal of what is heard and seen by the average person.

    If you want Democratic unity, you should not condemn Dean supporters but what has been done not only to Howard Dean but also to Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley Braun by debate moderators (media personnel, every one) and reporters.  THAT is what the eventual nominee will need: people who see through negative coverage and work to get the real message through.

    by zinfandel on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:15:44 PM PDT

    •  Look in the Mirror

      Kerry is targeting Bush, Dean is targeting Kerry, congrats Deanos, your anger at Kerry is helping the GOP.
      Thats real unity Deaniac style, if we can't win nobody will.

      by PC on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:10:01 PM PDT

      •  Repeat After Me...

        John Kerry is electable.

        John Kerry is electable.

        Howard Dean screams.

        Howard Dean screams.

        Very good.  

        Now, let's work on your practice session for after the election:

        Deaniacs attacked Kerry.  It's all their fault.

        Deaniacs attacked Kerry.  It's all their fault.

        Excellent.  You have now passed dittohead 101.

        by lolorb on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 06:39:34 PM PDT

      •  their anger is helping the GOP

        why are you pissing them off then?  

        wait--- you're not the GOP are you?

        by pyrrho on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:02:07 PM PDT

        •  Lefty All the Way!

          Absolutely not, the only concern is getting GWB out of office, its one thing to be angry that your man is doing badly but these people are taking their anger to another level.
          Their pissed off already if you notice all the anger directed at the other DEMS, how can they get any more angry. They sound like wingnuts, if that is something they don't like to hear then quit blaming everyone else for their candidates mistakes.
          Now he is attacking Kerry and just showing how thin skinned he really is.
          Look at his numbers, the DEM activists aren't supporting him for a reason, he's not connecting with the voters in the primaries, thats just reality, live with it.
          If he can't handle this the GOP would eat him alive with their tricks in Nov, and we can't afford that.
          The next thing he will run as an independent and pull a Nader on us, then what will people think!

          by PC on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 01:38:11 PM PDT

          •  fyi

            it was just the irony of having a flame war with people whose anger is "helping the GOP"... so a sort of sharp tongued joke... I don't really think you are with the GOP (that would make you like double-double reverse triple agent, or something very complex like that)

            I see where you are coming from, but you have to admit that you gave in your own post a very good reason to try to get along with them, to assuage their anger, maybe to be a bit understanding of their perspective...?

            by pyrrho on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 06:51:12 PM PDT

            •  Not Quite

              The people you are talking about are beyond compromise.
              I'm not talking about the right or the left, both are entrenched in their views, I'm talking about those that don't really have a philosphy that is written in stone. Those are the ones that will decide the election and they certainly lean con, they are not prejudiced yet only biased in their views.
              They are used to the extreme right because we have had that as a nation forever, when you have the extreme left, it is so unusual that it scares people and people generally are afraid of change and anything they don't understand. Notice how few liberals get elected in but a few states or areas. Theres a reason for that, and I presume you know the reason.
              If our candidate takes an extreme liberal stance on an issue, we will lose a majority of the voters I'm talking about and I believe winning in Nov will be impossible.
              I want the most liberal politician possible (Kucinich is my fav) but I'm old enough to know it ain't in the cards, so we must get the best deal we can and hopefully change the thinking in the country after were in office.
              That in itself is an idealistic attitude but I can't be cynical all the time, I have a dream to.
              We may not agree on the path, but we want to get to the same place.
              Left is right and right is wrong!
              Peace and have a great weekend.
              

              by PC on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:09:58 PM PDT

  •  odd

    I've seen many of the Deanies analysing what happened to Dean which included things he and Trippi did wrong, especially in Iowa.

    by pyrrho on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:00:35 PM PDT

•  Edwards channels Dean

  Sez Edwards:

  "We are going to have a campaign," he declared, "an election, not a coronation."

  by NYCO on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:40:39 AM PDT

  •  Who?

    (A) Who is being coronated?

    (B) Who is doing the coronating?

    by Reno on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:14:53 PM PDT

•  Dean has won in a way.

  Kerry is winning because he is using Dean's words and ideas.  Hopefully it is not skin deep.  Hopefully Dean's words penetrated and stiffened up his backbone brain and actions.  After all I concede he will be the nominee and base on Bush polls and his vulnerability most likely our president.

  Well hopefully the DFA, kossacks watch Kerry and be his moral force.

  by timber on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:57:31 AM PDT

•  Hey

  Maybe Democrats should pull a 1960 Mississippi and put "unpledged Democratic electors" on the ballot. Solves the problem right there.

  States would then vote, on the basis of their strength in the electoral college, on who the President and VP were (if they won).

  by youwouldno on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:05:34 AM PDT

•  Impressive

  What jumps out at you is that Kerry has earned nearly as many votes as Edwards, Dean and Clark combined.  This is about as clear a demonstration of dominance as could be imagined.  This thing is over.

  by SW on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:13:36 AM PDT

  •  Think Again!

    Read this Slate article:

    http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2095311/

    Edwards has got some fire in his belly--check out his blog.  He's energized in a way that makes me think this is far from over.  Did you see the Kerry's speech v. Edwards speech last night.  Vitality v. Sominex.

    Key point in the article:  the center to center right voters in the general won't care about "electability," they care about the best guy and exit polls show Edwards stronger than Kerry with swing voters.

    We're keeping the faith for a few more weeks!
    

    by Pontifex Minimus on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:54:15 PM PDT

•  Yeah, but....

  Kos asked, "Am I the only person relieved that 'Other' beat out LaRouche?" To which my answer is yeah, but...

  Even though I could never have voted for Moseley Braun after the disastrous end of her Senate career (despite having voted for her twice as a Senator), she has more class and credibility in her fingernail clippings than Lyndon LaRouche could muster up in a couple dozen centuries.

  And another thing: How does Evil Al rack up more votes than either Kucinich or Gephardt? Two words: Tawana Brawley.

  by musing85 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:43:45 AM PDT

  •  Please don't call him Evil Al.

    I'm fully aware of his past, but Al Sharpton has had a good message this year, and has a large following among working class blacks.  Calling him evil helps nobody but Bush.

    by Go Vegetarian on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:46:50 AM PDT

    •  Sleeping With the GOP

      he's not evil.  he's just supported by evil people.

      http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0405/barrett.php
      

      by cracklins on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:54:37 AM PDT

    •  Rev. Al

      . . . Al Sharpton has had a good message this year, and has a large following among working class blacks.

      He's always got a good message, most effective con artists do.  As to his following, it doesn't seem so large to me, he lost the DC beauty contest to Howard Dean and didn't do very well in South Carolina.  Jesse Jackson's campaigns for the Presidency did a hell of a lot better than Sharpton has done this year.

      The fact that he has a notorious GOPerative giving him help should tell you everything you need to know about him.
      

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:36:16 PM PDT

  •  what was so bad about Brauns

    Senate carreer, or it's end.

    The "parties with dictator" charge seems bogus and the financing scandal I have to admit I'm not very familiar with.

    I tend to just love Braun a lot.  I wish we could have presidents like her.

    by pyrrho on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:11:43 PM PDT

    •  Nothing truly evil, just bad politics

      Her Senate career ended ignominiously, she was more or less completely ineffective, and there was that whole Sani Abacha thing. I don't think she was intentionally sucking up for anything, but the fact that either none of her advisers told her she was about to do a big thing badly, or, worse, she ignored them when the did tell her that, was a big issue for me. I volunteered for her first Senate campaign, but had to hold my nose and vote for her the second time around just because she wasn't Peter Fitzgerald (whom I'm grateful will be leaving the Senate after this session).

      by musing85 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:53:45 PM PDT

•  LaRouchies at a Dean rally

  Back in June there was a debate at UCLA hosted by the League of Conservation Voters.  (It was 2 days after Dean's announcement speech in Burlington.)

  We had an outdoor Dean rally afterwards with about 300 people, probably the last time you could have seen Dean in person in California without paying.

  Anyway, while we were setting up for Dean, a couple dozen LaRouchies were marching up and down chanting anti-Cheney slogans, something about how Cheney controlled the Federal Reserve and the DLC.  They also were singing pro-LaRouche songs.

  I walked past the Kerry supporters at one point and apparently Kerry himself was in the middle of the pack, but there were less of them than there were LaRouchies.  (I might add that this is still the largest collection of Kerry supporters I have seen together in LA to date.)

  In the end, the UCLA police peacefully shuffled the LaRouchies out of our area before our rally started because we had a permit and they didn't.

  by runchadrun on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:48:13 PM PDT

  •  The LaRouche-Cheney Thing

    At a recent meeting of our state Dem Central Committee, two LaRouchies all but hijacked the meeting for about 45 minutes introducing resolutions to impeach Cheney.   Finally someone pointed out that if we work hard to defeat Bush, Cheney gets thrown out, too.

    I never understood the tactics of the LaRouchies, or why they focus on certain things.   It often seems puerile and arbitrary.  Concentrating mainly on Cheney is like pointing out the mote in a friend's eye, when there is a boulder (Bush) in his other eye.

    by vegasobserver on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 08:03:13 PM PDT

•  162

  Dean spent $162 per vote he has received so far.

  Don't want this guy running our budget.

  by Chuck G on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:55:55 PM PDT

  •  Key words being...

    ..."so far".  He's still got a small but solid core of voters across the country, and he won't continue to spend at nearly as high a rate, so I expect that number to drop dramatically.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:55:36 PM PDT

•  Do. The. Math.

  John Fitzgerald Kerry?

  by vegasobserver on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:26:40 PM PDT