digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at dennis4president.com

Kucinich Scores 77% in Nationwide Poll of Independents

dennis4president.com — Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich, who has been the runaway winner in polls of the Party ’s progressive, grassroots base in recent weeks, scored a landslide win yesterday by capturing almost 77% of the vote in a nationwide poll sponsored by a coalition of Independent voting groups across the country.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dylanh3, on 12/22/2007, -6/+67Just to clarify, 77% is actually the proportion of votes for Kucinich among all votes for Democratic candidates. (Remember that these are self-identified Independent voters, so it's not right to refer to the voters themselves as Democrats or Republicans). Even among all ~105,000 votes cast for ALL Democratic, Republican and Green Party candidates, Kucinich still garnered a very impressive 58%!
    • MattRK, on 12/22/2007, -23/+4Considering Independaents make up 0.3% of the voters out there, it isn't that impressive.

      Also consider there are around 60 to 80 million voters out there. (Actual voters) 105,000 votes for Kucinich means absolutely nothing. You might as well say that 1 out of the two people that live in your house voted for Kucinich. While that may be huge news to you and your spouse, in the bigger picture it means nothing.
      • JasonQG, on 12/22/2007, -0/+23From the article:
        "Nationally, more than 40 percent of voters are not aligned with any political party"
        • escheriv, on 12/23/2007, -2/+6"Independent" and "not aligned with any political party" are actually two different things.

          http://www.usiap.org/
          http://www.aipca.org/

          They seem to use them interchangably when convenient, but it looks like they are actually affiliated (at least somewhat) with the official Independent party.
          • art42, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1MSM usually does not mean the party when using independent.
      • emjaymj, on 12/22/2007, -2/+10You clearly haven't the faintest idea of how statistics work
    • SuckMyDigg, on 12/22/2007, -0/+12Well if you've ever taken any stats or psych classes in college the first things they teach you are that you can make reasonable estimates from what would appear to be a very small sample.
      • thedaylights, on 12/23/2007, -3/+4From a small *representative* sample. The sample for these polls are self-described "progressive" Democrats. This means they differ from the general consensus of "Democrat". I wish Kucinich had more support, but unfortunately, most Democratic Party voters do not fall into the "progressive" camp, and this sample does not represent their voting behaviour.
        • ZenMojo, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4Progressive Democrats? You mean the "self-described independent voters" who, naturally, must be Progressive Democrats?
    • MindStalker, on 12/23/2007, -1/+7The REALLY interesting thing about these results is how FEW Republicans voted compared to Democrats.
      If you take out Paul only 1745 Republicans votes, if you take out Kucinich 18676 Democrats voted.
      The number two Republican, Huckabee, got less votes than the lowest voted Democrat Dodd.
      • dylanh3, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1You're forgetting that these are not "Democrats" or "Republicans" who voted. They are people who do not identify themselves with either party. The correct interpretation is that these people are most enamored by Kucinich's message in particular, and by the message of the Democrats more generally.
    • thedaylights, on 12/23/2007, -8/+5Once again, look at the source. It's from a website for Independent voters - those whose political views are outside the mainstream. Since politics has been moving ever rightward over the decades, it's hard for a left-leaning voter to find anyone to support in the mainstream parties, hence there is a greater proportion of Democratic (leftist) than Republican (rightist) voters on this site.

      Since someone will likely bring it up, I'd better support my claim that politics has been shifting rightward for decades. Richard Nixon, a Republican, instituted more social programs and benefits for poor, single mothers, healthcare, etc. than any of the leading Democrats for several decades. That said, Nixon was a crook.
      • sherrife, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3I have no idea why you're getting dugg down. Mainstream electoral politics here in Oz has shifted wayyyy to the right as well, and therefore your analysis of the likely characteristics of self-identified Independents is probably spot on.

        I would add another point, that due to the shift to the right, hard leftists have no real place in the Dems (given that even social-democrat candidates like Kucinich never get up), which is significant when you consider that the hard right are perfectly at home in the _mainstream_ of the GOP (see the mainstream popularity of extreme conservatives like Romney, Huckabee, Bush, etc.).

        Check this site out for a graphical display of the current political climate in the US of A http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
    • NeilJ, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Looking at all the issues, I agree with Kucinich on almost everything... The Iraq war, universal healthcare, etc... HOWEVER, I can't vote for him because he wants to rid this country of firearms (as in banning the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians) -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kucinich#Plan_to_ban_ ... ... This would be a very bad thing if you ask me.
      It is my personal opinion that 'the best defense against tyranny is a well-armed populous'. Therefore as much as I love Kucinich, he won't be getting my vote
      • TheLoneHoot, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2If Dennis is your man otherwise then go ahead and vote for him - I doubt that the president alone can ban firearms - there are to other branches of government to balance that out. I'm voting for Dennis!!!
  • scootypuff, on 12/22/2007, -63/+15If I were a socialist who liked the idea of being in a police state, and believed that people cannot be responsible for themselves, I would vote for Dennis in a second!

    Well... maybe Gravel first :-0

    I would still vote for Ron Paul if Dennis was his running mate.....
    • Ineedanap, on 12/22/2007, -24/+6the sad part is there are sooo many of them. .. . .
    • rz8472, on 12/22/2007, -4/+34You clearly don't know what the definition of socialism is then, and are still living in the 50s
      • MattRK, on 12/22/2007, -19/+6lol. And we all know how GREAT socialism works.

        /Rolls Eyes
        • Pherdnut, on 12/22/2007, -4/+18Where are all these socialist countries that are like, on fire and sinking into the ocean you guys keep making allusions to? Not that I'm pro 100% socialism but you never give examples.
          • TheLoneHoot, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1@Pherdnut
            You are displaying your ignorance like it's on the Goodyear blimp at the Superbowl.
        • pintomp3, on 12/22/2007, -3/+15we know how great the free market works

          /pinochet.
        • masterm1nd, on 12/23/2007, -7/+6Both systems CAN and DO work. However one system fails A LOT more than the other. Take a guess which one. If you guessed the centralized BIG government one, you are correct.
          • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/23/2007, -1/+6you just described the US government.
        • locojones, on 12/23/2007, -1/+6Socialism seems to work just fine here in the US. Oh wait, you mean you didn't stop to think that our system of education, fire and police protection, libraries, etc. are socialist? That's right, your tax dollars go to fund things that benefit other people, even if you never use them. It's ok, I'll wait for your head to stop spinning. And once it does, shut the ***** up and sit down.
    • tao52nyc, on 12/23/2007, -0/+4You sound a bit conflicted to me...LOL
    • thedaylights, on 12/23/2007, -0/+19Norway, France, 1970's Canada are (were) socialist countries. They have free elections, democracy and tend to have less of an income dichotomy. They are also capitalist.
      USSR, North Korea, pre-1990s China are (were) communist countries. They didn't turn out so well due to totalitarian regimes.
    • JonGalt, on 12/23/2007, -9/+2Socialism did sooooo well when Stalin kill somewhere between 60-80 million people directly and indirectly. Or and don't forget the "national socialist party" that Hitler was head of....such a peaceful and wonderful statist government. Then you have North Korea, which cant feed its own people 90% of the time. Oh and don't forget France where unemployment is 8.0+% and you can't find a job if your older than 30 years old and you somehow get in a union. Lets look at all the capitalist countries that force people to take a government mandated job....oh wait they don't...lets see all the capitalist countries that murder their own...oh wait they don't...lets see...nope ,capitalism which breeds private ownership anb absolute freedom of choice is such a terrible thing. It sucks to have responsibility and self respect without the government cramming artificial substitutes down your troat, i guess for you guys above anyways.
      • edwartica, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4That was communism, not socialism.
      • noodless, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1Stalin = communism not socialism
        Hitler was fiercly anti communist, he practically came ot power to rid germany of communists. Also Hitlers authoritarianism is a far right thing, not a far left thing.
        France = better living standards and less inequality than America my friend.
  • Minarchian, on 12/22/2007, -10/+156Kick their asses Dennis!

    Paul vs Kucinich 2008
    • MadEnvoy, on 12/22/2007, -1/+37Dugg you up only for the last line, that would be the perfect scenario.
    • arbulus, on 12/22/2007, -22/+2Goatse Vs Tubgirl 2008

      Because to be quite honest, we have no better candidates who stand a chance in hell of actually winning.
    • completerobot, on 12/22/2007, -2/+19Whoever wins, we win.
    • samssf, on 12/23/2007, -0/+15Paul vs Kucinich would give me faith in this country again.
    • locojones, on 12/23/2007, -1/+14Can you imagine the debate? Two candidate sparring over who adheres to the Constitution the most, and who will strive to give the people the most freedom. *dreams*
      • enjoiskaterguy, on 12/23/2007, -2/+2As a constitutional stance on the second Ammendment and Healthcare Ron Paul wins. The Federal Gov. does not allow to determine what "the right to bear arms" is and the Federal Gov. under the constition does not have the authority to manage healthcare....now ammending the constition would be the only way that Kucinich would be adhereing to the constitution.
  • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/22/2007, -37/+143Ron Paul got 93% btw
    • slaizer, on 12/22/2007, -12/+40Now THAT'S impressive.
    • flygirl62, on 12/22/2007, -10/+29Seems to me that that's *more* of a story if you read the results (rather than the article)... And I do NOT mean to demean Kucinich's results any.
    • kwansolo, on 12/22/2007, -2/+20i thought you were joking. here's the direct link off the page to the results: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2489/t/4823/c ...

      i hope all these people and everyone on the Internet actually go out there and vote.
    • a3r0, on 12/22/2007, -6/+37Which is 23,524 votes compared to 61,477 votes for Kucinich. Distorting statistics is fun!
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/22/2007, -8/+14Well they also were able to get over 3 times more democratic leaning independents. Which is to be expected considering the sharp fall in republican supporters. It really isn't of concern to Ron Paul supporters right now because the first step is getting the nomination. And if 93% of republican leaning independents are supporting Ron Paul that will be a HUGE boost for him in the primaries. Then in the general election we can start convincing some of those democrat leaning independents to lean the other way now that there is someone with integrity running.
      • emjaymj, on 12/23/2007, -11/+6If you knew anything about the statistics of which you lament the distortion of, you'd know that a 93% with only a third of the total votes is still much more impressive than a 77%.
        • thedaylights, on 12/23/2007, -1/+7It is that sentence about which I lament the distortion of.
        • a3r0, on 12/23/2007, -1/+8It means there are fewer Republican voters and therefore fewer votes for Paul. If it were the real election, he wouldn't win
          • emjaymj, on 12/23/2007, -2/+3It means there are fewer registered independent voters that will vote republican. Which shouldn't be a surprise really, I'm not sure why you think it determines anything.
      • card51short, on 12/23/2007, -7/+10and even if it weren't more impressive, it still isn't "distorting statistics" to report that Paul got 93%.
        • a3r0, on 12/23/2007, -2/+4This just in: Ron Paul ate 100% of his Cheerios this morning

          They're different statistics. He didn't say what it was 93% OF (Neither did the headline, though)
    • hornsworth, on 12/22/2007, -12/+1Sounds more like a reason to utterly dismiss the numbers, as they're wildly divergent from the average voter, today.
    • tracker198x, on 12/23/2007, -2/+4impressive -- most impressive
    • mrASSMAN, on 12/23/2007, -4/+12Wow.. you were serious. Yeah there'd be no reason to vote for any of the other republicans as an independent considering how corrupt they are, Ron Paul really is the only choice.
    • tao52nyc, on 12/23/2007, -1/+8After looking at those results, it certainly suggests to ME that the "independent" vote could swing this thing in 2008. There a lot of disaffected people coming out of the woodwork in droves to participate in the process, some for the first time in many years, others the first time in their lives. I'd love to see a Kucinich and Paul final race in November - at long last, a REAL conversation about America's destiny.
    • Dustin00, on 12/23/2007, -2/+5Not impressive at all when you look at his competition.
  • jeanine22, on 12/22/2007, -20/+11Ron Paul/Naomi Wolf 2008
    thats my tricket
    • card51short, on 12/23/2007, -2/+2Ron Paul/Robert Bowman is mine but I like Wolf.
  • dylanh3, on 12/22/2007, -8/+26flygirl62, I completely agree with you, and I would have submitted the actual results page to Digg if a Ron Paul supporter hadn't already done so with a headline and description that portrayed the results as a "LANDSLIDE victory for Ron Paul"! I guess I felt I had to tip the balance in the other direction a little. ;)
    • jjb123, on 12/22/2007, -0/+13Reply, it's the cool thing to do.
      • dylanh3, on 12/23/2007, -1/+2Yeah, that was pretty dumb, wasn't it? I'm not really sure why I didn't use the reply function. :) Maybe too much commenting on blogs made me forget about it?
    • petebert, on 12/23/2007, -2/+2I agree with every internet user whos name contains flygirl
    • IrvineS2K, on 12/23/2007, -7/+1I dunno, sounds like 93% is as "landslide" as you can get. =P

      So sue me if I left out of the qualifier of "on the Republican side". :-|
  • JimmySpaza, on 12/22/2007, -31/+18Buried as inaccurate. The title said "nationwide" and "independent". Then, the story mentioned how it was restricted to some little-known website. Then, you find out that the poll is for independent voters who vote Democrat.

    But, what's a little white lie among leftists anyway?
    • kurttrail, on 12/22/2007, -9/+16Nothing compared to the big lies of your neoconvict masters.

      Left-Lies about blowjobs, no one dies.
      Right-Lies about War, thousands die!
      • Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -5/+7It's not like the left never lied about wars where thousands died either. The government as a whole is to blame.
        • enjoiskaterguy, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1STOP this left/right *****. The government wants us to argue and hate each other. This Democrat/Republican ideology is set to break America apart. Don't be apart of it.
          • Corrosionx, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1I'm not, what's at fault here is the very concept of government. I'm not buying in this left/right ***** at all.
      • masterm1nd, on 12/22/2007, -5/+6A lie implies intentional dishonesty. That is different from receiving crap data. I'd love to see some proof to the contrary. Either way, just because the left now tells you they're against the war, it doesn't change the fact that they also voted for it and none of their actions match any of the words they tell you.
      • DeadRooster, on 12/22/2007, -3/+7Haven't you read any newspapers lately? The right are the grand champions when it comes to lying about blowjobs--the only difference is they lie about giving them, rather than getting them.
        • masterm1nd, on 12/22/2007, -5/+3Yeah, because we all base our opinions of groups with millions of people on one or two people.
      • airiox, on 12/22/2007, -5/+2Judging by your picture and your idiotic rhyming scheme, you aren't too popular are you?
      • aadyss, on 12/23/2007, -7/+3Dear kurttrail,
        Wars started while the U.S. Government was under the Demcratic Party control:

        Mexican American - 13,283 U.S. soldiers dead
        WWI - 116,708 U.S. soldiers dead
        WWII - 416,800 U.S. soldiers dead
        Korea - 36,913 U.S. soldiers dead
        Vietnam - 58,151 U.S. soldiers dead
        Total 641,855 U.S. soldiers dead
        • thegreathal, on 12/23/2007, -2/+5Mexican American? Come on. Being a liberal, I was a Republican during the M-A War...while being a conservative, you were a pro-slavery Democrat. Good one.
        • reaganluver, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Oh sick burn!! you proved him 1/5th wrong ..... buyakasha
      • DeadRepubs, on 12/23/2007, -3/+3^ Inbred freerepublic righttards Circlejerk.
    • Mononuclear, on 12/22/2007, -3/+11This is the problem with the US. Retards go with party lines instead of actual people. Stop blaming the right or the left or making stupid comments about how the left does this or the right does that. Both sides are corrupt and most politicians are scumbags. Stop trying to defend one side or the other and just vote for whoever is the lesser evil.
      • aadyss, on 12/23/2007, -4/+2Keep up the positive attitude. So what you are saying is that life sucks????????????? Sad, how very sad for you.
        • reaganluver, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2A vote for the lesser of evil is a still a vote for evil. Don't sell out your soul!
  • slayerab, on 12/22/2007, -1/+14Well damit, these people need to participate in their primaries
    • tao52nyc, on 12/23/2007, -0/+5Well that IS the problem, isn't it? Most states are "closed primary" states, which means you can only vote for the candidate in your own declared Party. If you're an Independent, you can't vote for Kucinich, Paul, or anyone else. You're screwed. So I think media darlings like Lou Dobbs do the country a disservice by encouraging people to register independent, because by and large they will have NO SAY AT ALL in the primaries.
      • SamuraiGhost, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3You can always be registered as independent and just change to vote in the primary, then change back later. Thats what I did, and I suspect many others have done the same as well. Apparently none of us are included in the polls that put Ron Paul at 5%.
        • reaganluver, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2I'm in an open primary state. so they don't have my unnaffiliated ass on their call list either .
  • pintomp3, on 12/22/2007, -9/+16it's too bad people aren't more educated about their candidates. they pretty much either go with the pre-selected selected candidates of the corporate media or follow some internet hype. when people actually vote according to issues, kucinich comes out far ahead:
    http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php
    • masterm1nd, on 12/22/2007, -9/+8...assuming everyone feels the same exact way about every issue as you...
    • aadyss, on 12/23/2007, -6/+3Well, I guess everyone else is just not as intelligent and educated as yourself. We are just a bunch of idiots out there.
    • masterm1nd, on 12/23/2007, -4/+5Actually pinto, now that I looked into it, it's based on the form that the sites traffic filled out. No way represents the American people, just that particular sites demographic.
      • masterm1nd, on 12/23/2007, -4/+2Only on digg would I be buried for my comment.
    • Jessejb, on 12/23/2007, -4/+2Wow if you look at the chart about how people feel about hot issues it is so incredibly liberal. Total rubbish.
  • BlGBOSS, on 12/22/2007, -23/+36Kucinich and Paul should join forces
    • a3r0, on 12/22/2007, -6/+23What? You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Their political positions are almost entirely different
      • samssf, on 12/23/2007, -1/+11So? Just because they have different views on various issues, their common ground is that they're probably the only two candidates who are for the constitution and could really fix things in this country. I'd rather than someone in office who sees things differently than I, such as gay marriage, etc, than a liar or someone who claims god told him to go to war.
        • a3r0, on 12/23/2007, -2/+2How would they fix things if both of them want to do it different ways?
        • reaganluver, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1by following their common goals ... i.e CIVIL LIBERTIEs!! If they did nothing aside from bring the troops home, repeal the patriot act and m.c.a. and restored the bill of rights i would be happy
      • alex.will, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I've heard this exchange 1000 times in the comments of Kucinich or Paul stories.
    • BodomX, on 12/22/2007, -3/+12Don't forget his hot wife.
    • TwinTurboMike, on 12/22/2007, -2/+16As far-fetched as the idea might seem, it isn't entirely an impossibility.
      Elizabeth comments on Paul-Kucinich at 2:37 : http://www.rawvegas.tv/watch.php?vID=574264014a98f ...
      Paul comments on Kucinich at 6:35 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUG8T0ceeRs

      They are both strongly against the war. They have similar views on foreign policy. They both recognize the economic challenge that is ahead of us. They are both against the Patriot-Act. They both stand strongly for the constitution. They've co-sponsored bills together.
      • rarson, on 12/23/2007, -4/+7And then there's all the other issues that they DON'T agree on. Which is pretty much MOST of the issues.
        • emjaymj, on 12/23/2007, -2/+12Sorry, but issues like abortion are kind of trivial in light of the disaster that has become America's foreign policy.
          • rarson, on 12/23/2007, -1/+2Sure, I agree with that statement 100% , but abortion isn't an issue I'm concerned with, at all. I'm AM concerned with the economy and our currency, and in that respect, I feel Paul is a much better candidate. But don't get me wrong, I would definitely vote for Kucinich if it came down to him and any Republican besides Paul.
    • RockLobstah, on 12/22/2007, -0/+19Just because they are both honest, have strong, consistent principles, and love their country doesn't mean they have compatible views. They both want to fix their country, but in very different ways.
      • samssf, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2the "fix their country" part is what I care most about.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/22/2007, -7/+5But the large majority of the ways they want to fix it involves convincing the congress. And the one part that doesn't they agree on. Ending the war and bringing all troops home. I think a Paul/Kucinich ticket would be great. Just as long as Kucinich is the VP not the president.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 12/23/2007, -4/+4No. they don't agree on that. Ron Paul would close every base outside of the US. Dennis Kucinich would keep the bases open and allow American troops to go to Iraq under the UN flag. The two don't agree on anything, because on is a Socialist and one is a Libertarian.
        • LanceBoyle, on 12/23/2007, -1/+2I'm not for U.S. bases all over the world, nor would I exclude them based solely on Libertarian dogma. Paul's position on the "war" is correct, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Would he have been an isolationist in WWII too?
        • dylanh3, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Actually, you're wrong about Kucinich on both counts. First, he has expressed a desire to close as many military bases around the world as he can (see http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/kuc ...
          Second, he would pull out US troops and replace them with an international peacekeeping force under the direction of the UN. Under his plan, at least 50% of the peacekeeping troops would come from nations with large Muslim populations, so that the mission does not have the flavor of an occupation by Western powers. (see http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/kucin ...
    • rarson, on 12/23/2007, -3/+7When I hear people talking about Paul and Kucinich running together, that makes me think that they're just joiners jumping on the bandwagon. Because if you really understood these candidates, you would know that they differ in their views a LOT. I can respect supporting two honest candidates despite their differing opinions, but to think that they would work well in office together shows a lack of understanding of their ideas.
      • thegreathal, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2What would you rather have? Paul/Kucinich or Kucinich and friends, Paul and friends, or Clinton/Obama/Romney?
      • SouthsideIrish, on 12/23/2007, -8/+3Paul and friends. I don't want Dennis second in line for the presidency, or the president.
    • LanceBoyle, on 12/23/2007, -3/+6Paul and Kucinich are both populists so you got to admire them. Ron Paul wouldn't reign in the unbridled capitalism that is destroying America. Under Bush, it's been a big race to the bottom where the worst corporate citizens win by destroying the environment or screwing consumers in the name of greater profits. Capitalism can work but no cheating, and that includes allowing corporate fascists to buy control of the Federal government. I don't see how a Libertarian philosophy handles that.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 12/23/2007, -3/+5LoL! We do not live in a capitalist country. We live under a corporate mercantilism system and yes he would do everything he could to reign it in. BTW I wonder if they even agree on that.
        • LanceBoyle, on 12/23/2007, -1/+5Oh corporate mercantilism my ass, this is global corporate fascism. Corporations don't give a f%%k about America.
      • tao52nyc, on 12/23/2007, -3/+4I can only speak as a libertarian myself, not as a representative of the Paul campaign, so I don't know what his policy prescriptions would be in this regard. But your second-to-last statement describes EXACTLY how a libertarian philosophy would "handle" the problem. The "unbridled capitalism" you decry is not real "free market" capitalism at all, where everyone gets a chance to compete fairly, under the same rules on a level field. What you are referring to is "crony capitalism", big corporations buying influence on Capitol Hill through lobbyists and huge campaign contributions. So they can buy new laws that keep themselves in clover and limit competition from newcomers. When big business and big government get in bed with each other, that is a recipe for tyranny. But there are 3 million or so corporations in the US, and probably only the largest 200 or so are causing all the problems. The libertarian view has always been in favor of putting an end to influence peddling in DC, and allowing a level equal playing field for everyone - that's true capitalism (and America) at its best - free minds and free markets competing to innovate and create opportunity.
        • LanceBoyle, on 12/23/2007, -0/+8You have to FORCE a level playing field. Corporations will do whatever they can get away with legally. It's naive to think otherwise, IMHO. Teddy Roosevelt, imperialist bastard that he was, at least broke up Standard Oil. I just don't see Libertarians doing that. Tell me I'm wrong.
    • siszam, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4Kucinich cares if you have health care and have quality of life. Ron Paul doesn't. He's just another greedy, selfish, evil Republican who thinks it's alright for 45 million Americans to live without health care. There is no way they should "join forces".
  • jdaniel284, on 12/22/2007, -16/+16I would love to see a Paul / Kucinich ticket.
    • siszam, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3They are opposites. My gosh, at least check out each candidates stance on health care, social programs etc. You have no idea what you're talking about and it's idiot voters who put us through hell for the last 8 years of Bush. Do you want health care and social security? Well you better not vote for Ron Paul.
      • SlimFastForYou, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1The name calling just makes you look like an idiot sizam. Kucinich has said he would consider running with Paul, Paul has spoken highly of Kucinich and hasn't ruled out a joint run with the man. Plus they both have growing support bases, so it could be advantageous for them to work together. Paul knows the country can't function without some social services. If social services are Kucinich's specialty, he could still work wonders while Paul tackles big government waste. A bipartisan presidency is possible, it just depends on how much they are willing to listen to each other and compromise. I'm sure they could come up with common goals to work towards.
  • Slugs, on 12/22/2007, -3/+26Elizabeth would be the hottest first lady ever.
    http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=elizabeth+ ...
    • Frostman3D, on 12/23/2007, -3/+4She's not really that hot. She's really hot for Dennis though.
    • tillerman00, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3I'll say 2nd hottest. Got a thing for Jacky.
    • jumpyg1258, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Elizibeth would be the greatest FLILF ever!
  • kernel16, on 12/22/2007, -2/+10There is a disproportionate amount of pictures of Elizabeth Kucinich in the gallery...
  • skews13, on 12/22/2007, -10/+1if these guys were truly independent they would run on that platform.until then as far as i'm concerned kucinich is a democrat that will vote as a democrat,and paul is a republican that will vote as a republican.
    • alphasixtyone, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2i'm not sure i understand this comment First off, a president doesnt vote on *****. Congressmen do. you know, congressmen like paul and kucinich. and of anyone in congress they probably vote less along party lines than anyone else.
    • Pherdnut, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2It's the only thing they can do to not lose all media attention. You see any independents in the debates?
      • pintomp3, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3not that they get much media attention anyway, but the presidential debates are run by the parties.
  • Mohdoo, on 12/22/2007, -6/+27Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would never join forces because they believe in entirely different things, aside from the war and being honest politicians who want the best for our nation.

    Seems that needed to be clarified.
    • krnldmp, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2Not that the last three points are minute or something.
    • inhaler, on 12/22/2007, -3/+14They both uphold the Constitution. That's something I can support.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 12/23/2007, -1/+2They uphold different Constitution's, since they interpret in very different ways. Ron would read it closer to the way Jefferson or Madison would, and Dennis closer to the way Jackson would. And maybe Ron could have run with Dennis 200 years ago, but not now.
      • endersadvocate, on 12/23/2007, -0/+12nd amendment ..cough..
    • dylanh3, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1That's not quite right. They both believe that the excessive expansion of executive power (both in terms of bucking Congressional oversight and in terms of curbing civil liberties) under the Bush Administration should be reversed. This is just as important an issue as ending the use of war as an instrument of policy (which both Dr. Paul and Kucinich would do), in my opinion.
  • jessehadden, on 12/22/2007, -1/+14FTA: "In Iowa, however, Kucinich has been purposefully excluded from several Presidential debates and Party-sponsored events, leading political observers to wonder whether the 'game' in Iowa is rigged against him."

    Of course the game is rigged against him. Were it not for the media echo-chamber, Kucinich would be a real threat. That's why it's so important for the media to portray such an eminently electable man as being unelectable. The Democrats are the ones who sabotage the Kucinich revolution before it can ever get out of the gate, by believing & repeating the self-defeating memes.
    • gingerboyiv, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3First the money bombs, now your stealing the Revolution? Kucinich supporters really like to steal Ron Paul supporters ideas.

      The Ron Paul Revolution.....
  • smoothmedia, on 12/22/2007, -18/+8Internet Poll = Garbage.
    • GamerVer05, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Nationwide + independent poll became international whoever gives a ***** enough poll explain to me why it is not garbage.
  • holdmiester, on 12/22/2007, -2/+17GO KUCINICH
  • credential101, on 12/22/2007, -15/+2John Edwards as President....Ron Paul as Vice-President...True Bi-Partisanship
    • jdaniel284, on 12/22/2007, -7/+2John Edwards. True Bi-sexualship.
      • darkphenox, on 12/23/2007, -3/+2Your point being?
        • MrESaulved, on 12/23/2007, -4/+1That John Edwards has precious little support for his candidacy and should stick to blow drying his hair, building his mega-mega-mega mansion and litigating personal injury cases that make him a lot of money by capitalizing on an unfortunate tragedy.
        • nblsavage, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4Oh noes Edwards is rich and has good hair...he must be stopped.
      • colberrep, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2ann coulter is really a man, look it up
  • statrick, on 12/22/2007, -1/+10i love Dennis and his politics (ill most likely vote for him im my states primary) but these polls are so useless.

    vote for someone cause you agree with there views not cause somebody else does. you could learn all you need to know about these men in the same amount of time its takes you to watch one football game. we have people running that could literally save the world and i hope you all realize what is at stake.

    please do your homework people and vote to better your own quality of life, not just rich old people lives.


  • akmidnightsun, on 12/22/2007, -8/+2This is about as useful a poll as asking supporters at a rally who they'll vote for.
  • nlogax, on 12/22/2007, -3/+14I wish you'd elect Kucinich, but it will never happen.
    • siszam, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1Make sure you vote and don't just sit at home wishing and being apathetic.
  • reed311, on 12/22/2007, -10/+7This poll isn't scientific at all and should not be taken seriously. Come on guys, don't turn into propagandists like the Ron Paul supporters.
  • mhonorelsu, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5Someone inform me about this Kucinich and why he is so popular?
    • charlietuna, on 12/23/2007, -5/+3Kucinich is very much a left leaning "give peace a chance" type candidate. His wife is very worth a google image search. I doubt very much he would be able to bridge the right and the left (he is hardly considered centrist).
    • senatorpjt, on 12/23/2007, -3/+18He's socialist, like every modern country in the world besides the US.
      • matador3, on 12/23/2007, -3/+1Actually they're capitalist with some socialized programs which is a far cry from being the USSR. Their socialist systems are starting to starting to show the same types of problems though, predictably.
      • Nudar, on 12/23/2007, -3/+1And yet America is the world's only superpower. Looks like every other modern country has some catching up to do.
        • noodless, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Yeah America has socialism for the owners of the military industrial complex
    • MrESaulved, on 12/23/2007, -0/+6http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/
    • Pherdnut, on 12/23/2007, -0/+10He's one of the only reps who votes his conscience on bills. If a bill sucks, look to Dennis to be one of like 5 guys voting against it if there is a political advantage to be reaped from appearing to be in favor of it. He's very consistent and will back his ideas up with reason. He's also a bit of a firebrand and not at all afraid to call his democratic opponents out for doing the wrong thing.
    • colberrep, on 12/23/2007, -2/+10He is for social liberties (ending the war on drugs, pro choice, no illegal wire tapping, etc)..but unlike Ron Paul he is for keeping corporations accountable with strong regulations to protect workers, competition, and the environment. Oh and he is the only one for true universal health care.
    • jay667, on 12/23/2007, -8/+1Socialized healthcare run by the incompetent US govt would be the biggest disaster in US history.
      Kucinich is scary for this reason and Hillary like. He's anti-2nd amendment too so he does not support the constitution as much as Paul does. Socialists suck, period.
      • siszam, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4So it doesn't suck when people die bankrupt and neglected because their insurance denied them coverage that would have saved their lives? You think that's the American dream? Your idea of a great country is allowing millions to suffer? You're seriously twisted.
        • matador3, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1What a ridiculous false premise.

          "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

          We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

          -Frédéric Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
  • PierceNBoy, on 12/23/2007, -4/+27I just want to say, I like Ron Paul, but I like Dennis Kucinich more. Healthcare for all is the most important issue makes him stand out for me. Like he says, Healthcare is a right not a privilege in a democratic society. I agree, since when do I tell someone they have to earn the privilege to have healthcare and maybe you're not good enough to get that needed surgery. That's seriously the wrong way to think. I would be proud of this country for figuring this out. I honestly want to be proud of America and healthcare for all would be a step in the right direction.
    • Richandler, on 12/23/2007, -6/+7You do have a right to healthcare, just like you have a right to own a gun. It doesn't mean the governement should give it you. Especially a government whose debt from social security and medicare is going to be tens of trillions in the upcoming decades. Read your constitution buddy. Read Article 1, Section 8. Then Read Amendment 10. If Mr. pocket constitution actually understood the constitution he would realize the federal government doesn't have the power to create Universal Healthcare or even Social Security or Medicare. Funny how if those hundredes of billions in taxes got back into the hands of the people they might actually be able to afford healthcare.
      • Matt2k, on 12/23/2007, -3/+3Government should do what the well-informed constituents tell it to do. That is my #1 priority. Paul seeks to do that by going back to a strict adherence to the constitution and transferring power to local governments. Kucinich through other means.

        FWIW I donated to Paul's campaign, but my views tend to align more with Kucinich. I'd be happy to see them go head to head.
    • matador3, on 12/23/2007, -11/+5Health care is not a right because it is a product. You don't have a right to health care just like you don't have a right to shoes or a jacket. This doesn't mean they're not important to have but you have no right to claim the fruits of another person's labor without paying them market value. That would be slavery. The only moral thing to do is to free up the market so the price goes down, this does work with health care as can be seen from things like LASIK. Ron Paul has the right idea. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
    • locojones, on 12/23/2007, -1/+12***** you people and your "you don't deserve to have the preventative care because you can't afford it" *****. You do realize that you pay to send other people's kids to school right? You realize that you pay for fire and police protection for other people, right? You realize that you fund libraries and all sorts of things that other people use, regardless whether you yourself do, right?

      Tell me, if universal healthcare was such a terrible, horrible idea, then why does every civilized country in the western world, except the US, have it??? Because it works, and these countries put the health and welfare of their citizenry above the money grubbing profiteers in their corporations.
      • matador3, on 12/23/2007, -4/+4Allow me to counter with this brilliant blog, especially the last paragraph.

        Writes Steve Dekorte: "What I don't understand about the nationalized health care movement is why it must be done using the threat of force. If there are people in the US who wish to be a part of a health care system in which each contributes according to their means and receives according to their needs, then aren't they already free to form a private insurance organization of freely consenting members to do so?

        "If only to prove that such a system can be done in a way that is both acceptable to the participants and sustainable (without the ever increasing debt financing of all current socialist systems - including the US's) you'd think they'd already have one. Micheal Moore himself certainly has the resources and connections to start such an insurance system. I'd suggest he create one and show us how well it works.

        "The only difference between a system of the kind he advocates which is private and one which is 'public' is that the later will put you in a cage or kill you if you resist participation. The unspoken truth of socialism is that it is that despite any good intentions, it is always and ultimately done (ironically enough) at the point of a gun."

        http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014 ...

        It's both a philosophical objection and a practical one, I don't believe the government provides those services as well as a free market would but I do pay for them because I'm forced to.
  • charlietuna, on 12/23/2007, -8/+2This is a press release.
  • swoopdog, on 12/23/2007, -1/+13Kucinich vs. Paul in 2008

    lets make it happen!
    • Hemloch, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1If you're an anarcho-syndicalist and you honestly support Ron Paul, I question your political affiliation.
  • mrzack, on 12/23/2007, -5/+2Lyndon Larouche for Prez!!!!
  • gjscds, on 12/23/2007, -15/+2Buried as political spam.
    • DeadRepubs, on 12/23/2007, -1/+7Too many inbreeding righttards on digg.
  • ColonelJessup, on 12/23/2007, -1/+7I was talking to my grandpa this morning, and he said that Kuccinich would be the best choice for president at this time in America's history.

    Even though he said that Kuccinich would be the best choice, he said that he wont win the nomination without the $$$$.
    • Jessejb, on 12/23/2007, -5/+1He wouldn't win with all the $$$$$$$$$ in the world.
  • Spoomeister, on 12/23/2007, -6/+7Savor it, folks: that sentence from the summary, and this sentence right here, are the only times you're going to see the words "Kucinich", "win" and "landslide" so close together.
  • Pherdnut, on 12/23/2007, -12/+7I wouldn't vote for Kucinich if he took Ron Paul as a VP. I would expect Dennis to have a much better idea of what RP is than his supporters do.
  • Brucetheshark, on 12/23/2007, -9/+2I participated in that poll and I received the newsletter telling me that Ron Paul received over ninety percent of the votes. Do not be mislead by the title of this story. Kucinich may have received seventy-seven percent of DEMOCRATIC votes, but Ron Paul was the actual landslide victor.
  • petebert, on 12/23/2007, -4/+2I have a theory that you can't be president without a really simple american apple pie name. George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc... Kucinich? not gonna happen. But I'd love it if it did.
    • ZenMojo, on 12/23/2007, -2/+2Lyndon Baines Johnson? Richard Tiberius Nixon?
      • petebert, on 12/23/2007, -1/+4how many voters know the candidates wierd middle names?
    • GeneralGeodude, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1I guess Ron Paul should be the next president then.
  • loginabove, on 12/23/2007, -11/+1Dennis is a tough, good man with strong views. But he married a young, pretty stair-climber - his judgment isn't the greatest.
    He should be Ron Paul's V.P. He needs checks and balances.
    I vote for Ron Paul for Benevolent Dictator.
    Ron can have all of the signing statements he needs.
    • dylanh3, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2You imagine that you know his wife's inner thoughts and motives when you've never even met her - your judgment isn't the greatest.
  • prophet5, on 12/23/2007, -13/+1He couldn't score 77% of his own supporters. This far-left ass-dart is SOOOOOO far outside the mainstream (read: crazed moonbat) that he couldn't win an election in his own house.
    • colberrep, on 12/23/2007, -1/+7far outside the mainstream?

      please look up the polling on americans wanting universal health care, ending the war in iraq, protecting the environment, and raising the minimum wage.
    • colberrep, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3p.s.

      he might not win an election in his own house, but to his credit he has been mayor of cleveland and has been re-elected to the house of representatives several times
    • dylanh3, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2you fail at Life
  • crownedgriffin, on 12/23/2007, -4/+13Kucinich-Paul doesn't make any sense. I'd much prefer a Kucinich-Gravel ticket.
  • UltraPenguinX, on 12/23/2007, -9/+1Wow, 9 people support him?
  • alvarezg, on 12/23/2007, -2/+3When Dennis doesn't get the Democratic nomination, and I'm sorry to say it's doubtful that he will, I hope he runs as a 3rd party candidate. If nothing else, he'll be my write-in choice.
  • HyperZiper, on 12/23/2007, -1/+5PAUL VS KUCINICH
    AM I IN HEAVEN?!
  • Anzat, on 12/23/2007, -1/+2I can't believe anybody's taking this poll seriously. It's an Internet poll with no scientific methodology at all except for not letting people see the results right when they vote. So basically it's extremely freepable and the results mean nothing except that more of Kucinich's supporters pointed each other to this poll.
    It's about as indicative of national results as polling Digg to see how Ron Paul's doing.
  • mtanis, on 12/23/2007, -3/+177% for an internet poll of independent voters...
    GRATZ!!1
  • Mohanned, on 12/23/2007, -2/+7Everyone here saying Paul vs Kucinich 08 would be amazing is a moron. They're completely different, in fact, they're complete opposites. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't be a Paul supporter AND a Kucinich supporter (and vise versa); they want to do things totally different form each other.
    • CokeOps, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2This is somewhat true. But realize they are the same in some sense. They both voted against the War in Iraq from the start, they both support ending the drug war, and they both avid defenders of the Constitution. Economically they are no where related. But I don't think that matters as Ron Paul supporters may see Kucinich as a better candidate than any of the other corporate scum, I mean politicians (my slip). They both stand out as the only two honest men.
    • MaximusD, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3Which is why them squaring off in the general election would be awesome. I recognize it's just a fantasy, but could you imagine their debates? They'd be epic. And the dialogue in this country leading up to the election would be substantial, policy-focused stuff -- no swift boat crap. Plus, either way you get somebody who will protect civil liberties and end this awful war. So it's a fun fantasy. Knowing these two men are at least congressmen might get us through the Giuliani v. Clinton nightmare that is a real possibility.
  • Heel04, on 12/23/2007, -3/+1Buried for being misleading.
  • dragonopolis, on 12/23/2007, -6/+8I'm for Dennis myself. I see nothing socialist about his views on his website. Having social programs and being socialist are two entirely different things. Ron Paul is not against social programs contrary to what his supporters may cry, Ron Paul is just not for the Federal Government involvement in them.

    Actually, he favors social programs in State Government but would rather see privatized social programs (Insurance, Unions, Civic assemblies, etc). You could almost see a Corporatist (somebody who believes in Corporatism) view in Ron Paul rather than Libertarian - something that I do not want to see happen at all.

    Ron Paul also voted for permanent adoption of Bushes Tax cuts so while Ron Paul may be total different in his approach to Foreign policy compared to Bush but I still believe he favors the Rich and Corporate America over the people (yes middle class and poor get tax cuts under Ron Paul but so do the rich and they will benefit more from it than the poor or middle class and don't expect any of that money the rich receive in tax breaks to be funneled down to the middle class or poor( The old saying the Rich get Richer and the Poor get poorer will continue under Ron Paul).

    Of course, Presidential Primaries haven't started yet and my views can change as the potential Presidents battle it out but for now its........ Kucinich '08.
    • gingerboyiv, on 12/23/2007, -1/+1Uh.. WOW, listen to him explain his reason for this, if us lower class and middle class people had a lot less taxes than wouldn't you agree that we'd be richer? He'd cut federal spending in half, lower our taxes, bring back the gold standard, and make our money worth more. He's not taking money away from the poor people and giving it to the rich. He's giving everybody a tax break, because we won't need to pay those taxes. He also believes that it's the states rights to decide if they want socialist policy's or not. We are a United States, Not the United States. A Union of "soverign" states, which we aren't anymore.
  • Prodigal, on 12/23/2007, -2/+2Paul AND Kucinich is impossible. There aren't that many logical Americans. We need to pick one, and even then it's a long shot.
  • TxAggie08, on 12/23/2007, -8/+1Kucinich and Ron Paul are both losers. I actually thing Kucinich might be really and seriously crazy though. Ask him about the UFO's. Oh hell, just watch one of his speeches.

    Digg me down, but it doesn't change the fact that neither of these guys will ever be in power anywhere but a liberal message board, I really wish Ron Paul wasn't a rep from Texas. Damn.
    • Pherdnut, on 12/23/2007, -1/+0If Dennis is as consistent, intelligent, thoughtful, honest and hardworking as a president as he is a congressman, he can start talking about the invisible moonbeams that shoot out of all our butts for all I care.
  • kegan128, on 12/23/2007, -3/+0Just to clarify, two out of three is 66.6%, not 77%
  • Gaulven, on 12/23/2007, -1/+3Welp... it's a poll: "***** you, Frank!"
  • caponumen, on 12/23/2007, -2/+3Unfortunately his 2nd amendment stance is intolerable......
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.