Reality Check: Kucinich as President

In OTL the Kos imploded on Hillary/obama/kucinich as their candidate.

But was it ever realistic that Dennis Kucinich would win the nomination at denver then win the presidency?
 
Essentially, no.

Kucinich was one of the few candidates on the Left and as such, unless he was against an incredibly unpopular Republican would have no chance of winning, especially since he's to pacifistic and *gasp* supports Single-payer UHC, environmental regulations, labor rights and economic regulation.
 
Nope. Waaaaay to far left for the US. Maybe if his parents moved to Europe just before he was born then he might have a chance as a world leader. He'd probably just be a normal leftist there, instead of the way out extremist he is here.
 
Kucinich is someone who runs from the left, period. He has no tolerance for the concept that if you want to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, one has to run from the center and try appeal to the center. He's gone as far as he can as far as elected office goes (he'd get clobbered if he tried to run for the Senate from Ohio-his home state). Sort of like Ron Paul: easily electable to the House, but the Senate or the Presidency? Forget it.
 
In OTL the Kos imploded on Hillary/obama/kucinich as their candidate.

But was it ever realistic that Dennis Kucinich would win the nomination at denver then win the presidency?

Not as he is known now. Long story short he doesnt have anywhere near the standing with the public or the party to have a realistic chance at the nomination.

Now, if we move the POD back to the beginning of Kucinich's career, everything changes. When Kucinich was elected mayor of cleveland, he was the youngest city mayor in the United States. But he lost reelection in '79, which for the most part cast him into the political wilderness for fifteen years. I cant think of a specific change that would make reelection happen; some possibilities include Voinovich staying out, more consistent democratic support, Voinovich's daughter isnt hit by a van, no Hongisto incident, etc... Now, if he wins reelection in 1979, he is in a fairly strong (well, compared to OTL) position, and may be able to use this as a springboard for higher office (as a side note, this may end the career of one George Voinovich, given how he resigned his new post of lt. governor to enter the race, although if the POD is Voinovich doesnt run his career may be boosted). From here, he has a springboard to higher office, if he can revigorate the city during his next term. Let's say that Kucinich wins reelection by the a slim margin in '79, and by a larger margin in '81.

So Kucinich begins considering his options for moving up on the political totem pole. Senator is out. John Glenn (D) and Howard metzenbaum (D) are the incumbent senators, up for reelection in 1980 and 1982, respectivly, and Kucinich probably cant beat either in a primary. In 1982, however, the office of Governor opens up (incumbent Jim Rhodes being term limited). Dennis would have to defeat Dick Celeste, director of the peace corps and former lt. governor (not to mention OTL's winner in the general) in a primary, but if he handles his additional term and a half in cleveland well Kucinich could probably scrape by and triumph. The House's 10th district (his current one) is also a possibility, although that means unseating the popular clarence miller. I'm not entirely sure (and dont have the time) to map out where Kucinich goes from here, but being in congress 14 years early or being the governor of Ohio during the 80s is a good start for Kucinich to either be a presidential candidate or at least a powerful figure in the democratic party.
 
Essentially, no.

Kucinich was one of the few candidates on the Left and as such, unless he was against an incredibly unpopular Republican would have no chance of winning, especially since he's to pacifistic and *gasp* supports Single-payer UHC, environmental regulations, labor rights and economic regulation.

Most of his views on all the issues you mention are actually what the majority of Americans support, with the big exception of being anti-intervention when it comes to wars.

The problem is not that he's supposedly so far to the left. The problem is he has no corporate support and doesn't want it anyway. In the US that makes you a "leftist."

But yes, short of public financing of elections, no "leftist" or anyone anti-corporate power can win. That includes not just Kucinich but Ron Paul, Nader, or almost any 3rd party.

Short of someone with Kucinich's views being wealthy enough to finance their own campaign like Perot did, they can't win under the current laws.
 
Most of his views on all the issues you mention are actually what the majority of Americans support, with the big exception of being anti-intervention when it comes to wars.

Em, people disagreed with abortion and his department of peace (newspeak for surrender IMO). As well as that, his support for UN peacekeepers in iraq despite the fact that the blue helmets there would make rwanda and bosnia into successes by comparison.

The problem is not that he's supposedly so far to the left. The problem is he has no corporate support and doesn't want it anyway. In the US that makes you a "leftist."

No, a leftist is someone who wants bigger taxes and larger government. Why all this maoist talk of corporate control. before you trumpet scandinavia, i have this to say. Scandinavia and america are apples and oranges

But yes, short of public financing of elections, no "leftist" or anyone anti-corporate power can win. That includes not just Kucinich but Ron Paul, Nader, or almost any 3rd party.

Ron Paul did well with his campaign, and he is not a recluse.

Short of someone with Kucinich's views being wealthy enough to finance their own campaign like Perot did, they can't win under the current laws.

Kucinich was wealthy enough to run his own campaign, but was laughed down the DNC for having a 70s mindset.
 
Most of his views on all the issues you mention are actually what the majority of Americans support, with the big exception of being anti-intervention when it comes to wars.

No, they are'nt. And I say that as an American Leftist who follows politics and pays attention to the populace (different from popular) opinion.


The problem is not that he's supposedly so far to the left. The problem is he has no corporate support and doesn't want it anyway. In the US that makes you a "leftist."

I did'nt say he's far left, he's a moderate left social democrat, though given America is overall a Right-wing country, unfortunately, that does make him look far left.


No, a leftist is someone who wants bigger taxes and larger government.

That's BS.
I'm a Leftist and I don't automatically want either, I prefer medium government, though I'm willing to support whatever size works for each issue and I support Progressive taxation, which is basically really only high taxes for the wealthy, moderate for the middle-class, low for the lower-middle and next to none for those who make little.
 
Ironically, Kucinich was impeached during his term as mayor for refusing to privatize Cleveland's power- though Cleveland also passed a resolution in his honor a few years back for not privatising the power company.
 
Last edited:
Ironically, Kucinich was impeached during his term as mayor for refusing to privatize Cleveland's power- though Cleveland also passed a resolution in his honor a few years back for not privatising the power company.

Nitpick, but Kucinich was not impeached. However, he did face a recall election, and survived by the skin of his teeth (about 200 votes were the difference). In addition, that was over his firing of the chief of police, not the energy company (although that issue may have influenced voters).
 
Well, since I voted for the tough old guy and the conservative chick, Kucinich is one Democrap that McCain/Palin would've trounced. When people are voting for President, they want someone who can fix/maintain the economy (depending on how things are), be firm and tough in foreign/defense matters, and generally be someone who leads and governs from the center. A lot of Kucinich's ideas wouldn't even get out of a Democratic congress. And his foreign policy ideas make Jimmy Carter look like a Republican (a frightening thought in any case). I had a laugh when Kucinich suggested UN Blue Helmets for Iraq...and this after Zarquari blew up the UN's Baghdad offices! He's the Democrats' Ron Paul-the perinnal gadfly of the Party.

The U.S. is still a Center-Right country, last year's results aside, and anyone who runs on a platform that makes MoveOn.org or the ACLU look conservative isn't going to get out of the Primaries, let alone win the general election. The same goes for people like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan: nice try in the Primaries, but even the GOP has enough sense to tell you to take a hike.
 
No chance, really, unless you go back several decades & change how American politics developed over the last half-century. Maybe if the Great Society programs were all instituted and passed in their entirety, or something like that.

Well, since I voted for the tough old guy and the conservative chick, Kucinich is one Democrap that McCain/Palin would've trounced. When people are voting for President, they want someone who can fix/maintain the economy (depending on how things are), be firm and tough in foreign/defense matters, and generally be someone who leads and governs from the center. A lot of Kucinich's ideas wouldn't even get out of a Democratic congress. And his foreign policy ideas make Jimmy Carter look like a Republican (a frightening thought in any case). I had a laugh when Kucinich suggested UN Blue Helmets for Iraq...and this after Zarquari blew up the UN's Baghdad offices! He's the Democrats' Ron Paul-the perinnal gadfly of the Party.

The U.S. is still a Center-Right country, last year's results aside, and anyone who runs on a platform that makes MoveOn.org or the ACLU look conservative isn't going to get out of the Primaries, let alone win the general election. The same goes for people like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan: nice try in the Primaries, but even the GOP has enough sense to tell you to take a hike.
... Wow. I'm just impressed with how many right-wing memes you managed to cram in there. You've got the juvenile out-of-place nickname in place of "Democrat", a swipe at Jimmy Carter, a snide remark about the United Nations, the laughable "centre-right country" thing, and for good measure some boogedy-boogedy references to MoveOn.org & the American Civil Liberties Union -- all in two paragraphs. Very impressive.

(Although to your credit you did use the correct "Democratic" instead of "Democrat" -- genuine kudos to you for that.)
 
No chance, really, unless you go back several decades & change how American politics developed over the last half-century. Maybe if the Great Society programs were all instituted and passed in their entirety, or something like that.


... Wow. I'm just impressed with how many right-wing memes you managed to cram in there. You've got the juvenile out-of-place nickname in place of "Democrat", a swipe at Jimmy Carter, a snide remark about the United Nations, the laughable "centre-right country" thing, and for good measure some boogedy-boogedy references to MoveOn.org & the American Civil Liberties Union -- all in two paragraphs. Very impressive.

(Although to your credit you did use the correct "Democratic" instead of "Democrat" -- genuine kudos to you for that.)

Given the UN's track record in Rwanda, Bosnia, Congo and elswhere the blue helmets have been, i am not surprised about the cynicism.

Jimmy Carter gave carte blanche to the Soviet Union during his tenure.
 
1. Em, people disagreed with abortion and

2. his department of peace (newspeak for surrender IMO).

3. As well as that, his support for UN peacekeepers in iraq despite the fact that the blue helmets there would make rwanda and bosnia into successes by comparison.

4. No, a leftist is someone who wants bigger taxes and larger government.

5. Why all this maoist talk of corporate control.

6. before you trumpet scandinavia, i have this to say. Scandinavia and america are apples and oranges

7. Ron Paul did well with his campaign, and he is not a recluse.

8. Kucinich was wealthy enough to run his own campaign,

9. but was laughed down the DNC for having a 70s mindset.

This is entertaining.

1. Most Americans are pro choice.

2. Nice bit of red baiting. You do know that newspeak was a phrase coined by a socialist, right?

I don't know of any polls on a dept of peace. Nice of you to ignore what I said, that the one major issue most Americans disagree with him on is intervention. (Which is a tragedy IMO, a lot of misplaced attempts to prove manhood.)

3. And yet Bush himself trumpeted his alleged attempts at multilateralism with his phony "Coalition of the Willing."

It's more than a little ironic to see your 180 degree turn after getting trounced on the Rwanda threads you started.

4. Nonsense. Most anarchists are leftists, and some libertarians are as well.

5. Show me a quote where Mao ever said "corporate control." What you're doing is pretty silly red-baiting.

OTH, a simple google search can find hundreds of sites where Ron Paul supporters use the phrase.

6. I have no idea what you were trying to say, and I doubt you do either.

7. Relative to how people expected him to do, yes. Doesn't change the fact that his anti-corporate power stance cost him any support among the GOP establishment.

8. Hardly.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html
"Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. His 2005 report showed assets between $196,000 and $352,000."

9. 1970s? The era when Nixon won and a moderate like Carter was the best Dems could do?
 
This is entertaining.

1. Most Americans are pro choice.

2. Nice bit of red baiting. You do know that newspeak was a phrase coined by a socialist, right?

I don't know of any polls on a dept of peace. Nice of you to ignore what I said, that the one major issue most Americans disagree with him on is intervention. (Which is a tragedy IMO, a lot of misplaced attempts to prove manhood.)

3. And yet Bush himself trumpeted his alleged attempts at multilateralism with his phony "Coalition of the Willing."

It's more than a little ironic to see your 180 degree turn after getting trounced on the Rwanda threads you started.

4. Nonsense. Most anarchists are leftists, and some libertarians are as well.

5. Show me a quote where Mao ever said "corporate control." What you're doing is pretty silly red-baiting.

OTH, a simple google search can find hundreds of sites where Ron Paul supporters use the phrase.

6. I have no idea what you were trying to say, and I doubt you do either.

7. Relative to how people expected him to do, yes. Doesn't change the fact that his anti-corporate power stance cost him any support among the GOP establishment.

8. Hardly.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html
"Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. His 2005 report showed assets between $196,000 and $352,000."

9. 1970s? The era when Nixon won and a moderate like Carter was the best Dems could do?


1. evidence?

2. yes, but non-sequitur. It seems that anyone who disagrees is a "redbaiter". nice try at a thought terminating cliche.

3. I was referring to the context of the United Nations.

4. most anarchists are leftists, but are all leftists anarchists?

5. mao was talking about "imperialism" and capitalism being the fount of all evil. I was saying you are a maoist because of your "visions of 'Amerika' as the fount of all evil"

6. I was referring to the Kleinbots who trumpet scandinavia as a utopian model that should be emulated.

7. as ususal, corporations are the fount of all evil in 'Amerika', with the GOP being their dogs. Last i checked, it was because of ron paul being labeled an isolationist as well as his links with kooks like Alex Jones and the founder of Stormfront.

8. Kucinich did not submit a report to the FEC.

9. I was referring to the hippie era. Biggest bunch of maoists you could find in the world outside china and Cambodia.
 
Top