AdvanceAmerica Blog

Archive for the ‘Rep. Dennis Kucinich’ Category

Dennis Kucinich could lose his congressional seat Tuesday

Posted by Paul on March 2, 2008

I feel kind of bad for him. He was very snug on the stage of presidential contenders last March and I’m sure he was fairly confident with the relationship he had with his OH-10 residents. But now Kucinich finds himself in the battle for his political life. This Tuesday, he could lose his party’s nomination for Ohio’s 10th Congressional District seat. His challenger: Cleveland City Councelman Joe Cimperman.

During his presidential campaign, Kucinich missed 139 votes. The mayor of Cleveland and the Cleveland Plain-Dealer have endorsed Cimperman, citing Kucinich’s increasing national profile and decreasing concern for the people of Ohio’s 10th district.

Read the full report in the Washington Post.

Posted in Ohio, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, US Congress | Leave a Comment »

Tracking More from Iowa

Posted by Paul on January 2, 2008

I feel as though I spent a considerable amount of space giving credit to the DMR poll, which as I outlined below, feel was significant. With that said, there are several other indicators that paint a different picture in Iowa.

Polling Data

Strategic Vision, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Edwards 29%
Clinton 27%

Des Moines Register, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 24%

CNN/ Opinion Research Corp., Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%
Edwards 22%

Insider Advantage, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 30%
Edwards 29%
Obama 22%

American Research Group, Dec. 29, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 24%
Edwards 24%

Mason-Dixon, Dec. 29, 2007
Edwards 24%
Clinton 23%
Obama 22%

Quad-City Times, Dec. 28, 2007
Obama 29%
Clinton 29%
Edwards 28%

Analysis: It’s all over the place. Whoever you’re for, congratulations because they’re doing well. Above is a chart from Wikipedia monitoring all the data averaging it into linear regression. Real Clear Politics did the same thing and came up with (for Iowa only) Clinton averaging only 1.1% overall. Obama has clearly been gaining, as has Edwards at the expense of Hillary Clinton. As you see on the graph above, the number of undecideds have also come down as we approach the caucus. It’s interesting how more undecideds turned to Edwards and Obama than Clinton.

Campaign Finances
2.3 million Iowans
$40 million spent in political advertising
= $150-$200/caucus-goer in Iowa

Without a doubt, the front runners are digging deep into campaign warchests. CNN reports that Barack Obama leads the field in spending for Iowa:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois far outpaces any other candidate when it comes to ad spending in Iowa, having spent more than $9 million on close to 11,000 spots. That’s about $2 million more than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has spent ($7.2 million), and about three times the amount that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has shelled out ($3.2 million). Clinton has aired close to 8,000 spots while Edwards has aired 3,700.

Analysis: Both Clinton and Obama have spent millions on advertising: Obama just $2 million more than Clinton. Edwards on the other hand has only spent $3.2 million in advertising, suggesting that he is expecting traditional caucus-goers to bring him to victory. In spending $6 million less than other candidates, Edwards hasn’t been appealing to independents, or new demographics as Obama; Edwards’ support comes from those who propped him up in ‘04, and his lack of advertising suggests a reliance on ground infrastructure and retail politics over visibility.

Endorsements
Who has the most endorsements? Well, Edwards secured the endorsement of Mari Culver, the first lady of Iowa. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all secured the endorsements of Iowa’s three congressmen, respectively. And yesterday, Dennis Kucinich released this statement:
Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama on Second Iowa Ballot

For Immediate Release — Tuesday, January 01, 2008

DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Sen. Barack Obama. “This is obviously an ‘Iowa-only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change.”

Kucinich’s endorsement may mean little, but in a race that is a virtual three way tie, a 1% gain may be crucial. Of course people are free to make up their own mind and chose independently without anyone demanding caucasers support any one person, but Kucinich’s following is unique in that they’re all very loyal and committed to Kucinich’s ideals.

Posted in Barack Obama, Endorsements, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, John Edwards, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, campaign finances, polling | Leave a Comment »

Dennis Kucinich Announces

Posted by Paul on December 15, 2006

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, MA there was one man who vocally challenged John Kerry’s nomination for the Presidency of the United States: Dennis Kucinich. As the state delegations cast their votes for the nomination, Kucinich was a lonely voice of opposition amongst the largely pro-Kerry crowd. Despite the fact that he received but a few of the Ohio delegation’s votes, his opposition can be seen as symbolic. Kucinich after all represents the hard-line left of the Democratic Party- and as he prepares to seek the nomination yet again, his calls for complete and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq could possibly give him sway amongst the hard-line lefties in the Democratic primaries. Unfortunately, this is not true of the American people.

Most Americans want to see victory in Iraq, or at least says our president. But according to the December 13, 2006 Washington Post, “ Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops” reports a Washington Post-ABC News survey. The problem is this is exactly what our generals are doing. The Iraqi military is still building, but not fast enough- and while army generals work toward strengthening Iraqi security, Americans see body bags and complete chaos in the streets of Baghdad. Perhaps this is why the war has grown so incredibly unpopular, and perhaps this is why viewpoints such as Kucinich’s have become increasingly enticing.

The war is now the focal point of the Kucinich for President 2008 strategy: capitalize off the unpopularity of a war by proposing a solution.

As a congressman, Kucinich is calling for Congress to immediately cut the funding for the War in Iraq, but the incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has diluted this extreme proposal. Pelosi at least recognizes that despite the fact that this president’s approval ratings may be in the lower twenties, and despite the fact that eight in ten Americans favor a shift in strategy, they don’t want to see the lives of 3,000 American troops to go to waste. Pelosi’s recognition of this fundamental understanding puts her at an equal playing field with the president- but where they differ is what ought be named the “way forward.”

Kucinich’s proposal for the “way forward” is far too drastic. Even though he may appease the hard-line Democratic Cindy Sheehan’s in the primaries, I believe there is a sizable crowd among Democrats with common sense. For this reason I know that Kucinich won’t even be competitive in the lead up to 2008, and why I believe his campaign is destined for failure.

First of all, Kucinich simply isn’t an attractive personality. He is boring- in both his ideas and his character. His plan to cut and run is not novel and in fact presents itself as (at least) a solution, but simply doesn’t work. If American’s learned anything from Vietnam, it’s that cutting and running is a waste of money, material and most importantly, human life.

Secondly, Kucinich’s voting record is way too liberal. He is an anti-war, pro-ACLU, AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood Democrat. Consider his voting record with the following interest groups by the acclaimed, credible Project Vote Smart:

1. Abortion: Kucinich votes with Planned Parenthood 56% of the time/ NAPAL Pro-Choice America: 100% of the time (2005)
2. Federal Funding of the Arts: Kucinich votes with Americans for the Arts: 90% of the time (2004)
3. Taxes: Kucinich votes with Americans for Tax Reform (anti-tax increasing lobby) 10% of the time (2005)
4. Business: Kucinich votes with the Small Business & Entrepreneurial
Council 13% of the time (2004)
5. Energy: Kucinich votes with Campaign for America’s Future (alternative energy lobby) 100% of the time (2006).
6. Environment: Kucinich votes with the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100% of the time (2005).
7. Foreign Policy: The Citizens for Global Solutions, a lobby which “[…]envisions a future which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone” gave Congressman Kucinich an A+ rating. (2005)
8. Gun Control: The National Rifle Association gives Congressman Kucinich an F rating. (2006).

If lobbies are any prediction of how a Congressmen position themselves on the issues, it is easy too infer that Kucinich is incredibly liberal. He may be supported by some in the Democratic primaries, but ultimately a man who is more liberal than John Kerry himself will not secure the nomination because his voting record easily attests to solid liberal extremism. If Democratic delegates learned anything from the Walter Mondale campaign of the ‘80’s, it is that extreme liberals are not popular, and are easily defeatable, and for this reason gives me proof that Kucinich cannot win the nomination, nor the presidency.

So this leads me to my final reason why Kucinich cannot win the nomination: most Democrats realize that his run is more symbolic than realistic. Kucinich himself states that he is in the race because he believes the party has grown out of touch with its roots, and Democrats understand his sentiment. Inevitably, he is running to represent that hardliner liberal voice of the Democratic Party, but modern delegates (especially given the incredible rise of conservative Democrats inducted into the party in the recent mid-term elections), know that an electable president is not a Walter Mondale, but a centrist—a compromiser. Kucinich is the last throw of liberalism in a party that has an increasingly large tent- and his run in ’08 will be seen as such.

Kucinich was expected to run. He is a familiar face who (like Vilsack) announced his intentions early to gather as may resources as possible. Unfortunately for Kucinich and Vilsack, many of those resources will be waiting for Obama and Clinton if and when they decide to run. Hopefully soon.

Posted in 2008, Rep. Dennis Kucinich | Leave a Comment »