Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For Obama As Second Choice

Considering the growing angst among progressives toward Obama, it's interesting that inarguably the most progressive of all candidates in the field, Dennis Kucinich, is now urging supporters to caucus for Obama in precincts where Kucinich doesn't reach viability (and considering Kucinich is at 1% in the latest DMR poll, let's face it, that will be every precinct.)

Kucinich's statement per Ben Smith:

"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."

As Chris Bowers notes, it's strange that Kucinich would abandon John Edwards, whom he'd endorsed for second choice in 2004, now that Edwards has actually moved to the left on so many issues. And the idea that Kucinich would buy into the hype of Obama as the singular candidate of change, as though Edwards hasn't made arguably a more compelling argument of how exactly he's going to change Washington, makes the choice all the odder. Obama's change message is not about fighting for the change we need, it's about post-partisan compromise, a far cry from the radical change that Dennis Kucinich has called for. Bowers thinks it has to do with antagonism toward the candidates taking away his natural supporters; I suspect it has more to do with choosing the candidate he feels will be the most viable anti-Hillary candidate.

As a practical matter, of course, the Kucinich quasi-endorsement is unlikely to make much of a difference, certainly less of one than it did in 2004. As Bowers says:

It should also be pointed out that the Kucinich endorsement will matter less in 2008 than it did in 2004.  Four years ago, Kucinich was polling at an average of 3.3% in Iowa just before the caucuses. Right now, he is only polling at around 1% in Iowa.

In his response, it's somewhat amusing to hear Obama him try to cast himself and Kucinich as two peas in a pod, but to his credit, it doesn't sound as though he feels Kucinich's second choice support will be decisive.

"I have a lot of respect for Congressman Kucinich, and I'm honored that he has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change," said Senator Obama. "He and I have been fighting for a number of the same priorities -- including an end to the war in Iraq that we both opposed from the start, reforming Washington and creating a better life for America's working families. I encourage all Iowans to take part in the caucuses this Thursday - not because it will be good for any one candidate, but because it will be good for our party and the future of our country."



Display:


It's all ego for him. (2.00 / 1)

Nothing more elegant or complicated than that.

He hated Dean for being the darling of the Left in 2004.  That's why he went for Edwards then (who was a centrist in 2004).

Now, in 2008, he hates Edwards for being the darling of the Left, so he goes with the centrist Obama.

Salacious Crumb, er, Dennis Kucinich, is.  an.  asshole.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:46:59 PM EST

Re: It's all ego for him. (none / 0)

Must disagree. If Kusinich went on the issues, he should have endorsed Edwards. Instead he endorsed the viable antiHillary candidate, but the damage she could inflict on the country is far greater than the good Edwards might do if he were elected. Then there is the electability factor. Edwards has pretty much topped out. Obama is still moving upward, as seen by the latest Iowa poll. NH is the real test for Obama, because he obviously needs considerable momentum to overcome Hillary's national lead.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kucinich is not an asshole. (2.00 / 1)

He just recognizes that Edwards is a used car salesman.


by nerdoff on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich is not an asshole. (none / 0)

This made me laugh. I live in Iowa and you hear one of two things about Edwards, folks love him, or they think he is a snake oil salesman. I like him personally but understand why so many folks see him as phony.


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

While this is obviously good for Obama, I think we all learned in 2004 that Kucinich's endorsements have very little to do with ideology.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:47:08 PM EST

Kucinich's supporters do their own thing. (none / 0)

I saw that first-hand at my precinct in 2004.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:47:54 PM EST

yes, many went to Dean (2.00 / 2)

Anyway, there are basically no Kucinich supporters anymore. He has not run a real campaign in Iowa this time. I know a bunch of people who volunteered for his campaign last cycle. They are all committed to Edwards except for a couple who are still on the fence (but Obama is not one of the ones they are considering).

Ed Fallon, the most prominent Kucinich supporter from 2004, has been campaigning for Edwards all year. I have seen him convince people to caucus for Edwards rather than Obama.

He also sent a letter to Iowans who supported his 2006 gubernatorial campaign making the case for Edwards as the best progressive in the race.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (2.00 / 1)

Maybe Kucinich understands what a load of bullshit is" Obama's change message is not about fighting for the change we need, it's about post-partisan compromise."  Maybe he doesn't buy that but instead realizes that Obama is the one who has always been for change and has the best track record with his emphasis on ethics and transparency in government.  Maybe Dennis doesn't agree that Edwards has made a more compelling argument of how exactly he's going to change Washington.  I agree with you that it is not, as Bowers thinks, to do with antagonism toward the candidates taking away his natural supporters because if anyone is doing that it is Obama being the only other candidate with the correct judgment to speak out against the Iraq War.  But I disagree that it has anything to do with being "the most viable anti-Hillary candidate".  If Dennis has shown anything to us it is he is willing to stand up for what he thinks is right and that he uses the Presidential Primary stage to articulate a consistent Progressive message free from the horse-race apsect of the race.  He constantly reminds people its not what you say, it's what you have done.  And going by that, it is not surprising at all that his choice among all the others would be Barack Obama.


by Piuma on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:58:10 PM EST

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (2.00 / 1)

And Obama & Kucinich opposed the war in 2003, the other two frontrunners voted to authorize it.


by howardpark on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

in what way has Obama (none / 0)

been "fighting" to end the war since he got elected to the Senate? That's what I don't get.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: in what way has Obama (none / 0)

He's been pushing to build a consensus for a phased withdrawal.  Russ Feingold said way back in March, that of all the Presidential candidates it was Barack Obama that has been the most constructive in moving the democratic caucus toward a position to get us out of Iraq.  


by Piuma on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (2.00 / 1)

Kucinch voted against funding the war.  So did Edwards.  

Kucinich is not consistent in his rationale.  I just think he is peeved at Edwards and this is how he shows it.

I love Kucinich for his stance on many issues but he has the political instincts of a horse fly.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

And let's add to that: what bills have either been the primary sponsor for in their respective houses?

Bottom line: practically nil.

That's what irks me about Obama: he speaks in glorious tones, and is the best orator of the lot this time around.  But he's not really saying anything in these speeches.  It's a lot of happy tones, optimism, and that, but there's little actual substance being delivered.

And it seems that Obama is turning into another over-advised candidate from the Dems.  Witness his savaging of Edwards and Clinton of late, using divisive talking points aiming at so-called key demographics.  Yet Obama has painted himself as a "candidate of unity" since the beginning.

So which Obama is the real one?  Is it the hopeful optimist who seeks to unite all Dems and all Americans?  Or is it the one who attacks the character and life choices of his opponents, in turn attacking loyal members of his own party, as well as thousands of volunteers who didn't join the campaign to embark upon the politics of division?

At least with Kucinich, he's been unabashed in his message: loud, forceful, and a bit off-kilter in its delivery, but extremely consistent since 2003.  And while I agree with a lot of what he has to say, he's very much not presidential material.

So this deal is reminiscent of Kucinich in 2004: he encouraged his supporters to vote for Edwards because he despised the fact that Dean was the darling of the progressive populists.  And this time 'round, he's throwing his support behind Obama, as Edwards is the darling of the progressive populists.

As said in another response: Kucinich has the political acumen of a housefly.

Just my $0.02 - YMMV.


Want rants? Get 'em here: randomduck.com
by DCFD Rudi on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

It is so cynical to constantly use his "I don't know" quote, which was said in the context of supporting both Kerry & Edwards for President, as meaning anything but I'm not going to put the heat on them.  And everyone knows it.


by Piuma on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the importance of the Kucinich deal (2.00 / 1)

was always overstated. Edwards benefited much more from being the second choice of almost all Gephardt supporters. There were many more Gephardt supporters in most precincts than Kucinich supporters. Even though there was no deal between the candidates, the Gephardt supporters overwhelmingly went to Edwards.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:00:25 PM EST

Re: the importance of the Kucinich deal (none / 0)

A Myth. Compare the 2004 Iowa entrance poll to the final results:

Folks walking into the caucus said they were supporting Gepheart at 11%. He ended with 10.6%. He lost .04%. Hardly important.

Caucus goers entered the caucus supporting Kucinich at 4%. He ended at 1.4%. He lost 2.6%.

Dean entered at 20% and ended at 18% (losing 2 points).

Zero percent entered were undecided.

Other started the night at 1% and ended at zero.

Edwards entered with 26% and Edwards final result was 31.8% --gaining 5.8%

Kerry entered with 35 % and the final for Kerry was 37.6% --gaining 2.6%

The net gain for Kerry and Edwards came from Kucinich, Dean, Other, and Gepheart. In that order.


by aiko on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the importance of the Kucinich deal (none / 0)

I am just looking at raw totals and the numbers suggest that Gepheart folks had already switched to Edwards and Kerry before they left the house.

The only folks who switched at the caucus (statistically significant) were Kucininch and Dean supporters/


by aiko on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich (none / 0)

Remember how just a day ago the DMR poll got everyone saying that this is a 3-way race? While there are very few Kucinich supporters left, small amounts can mean a lot at this point.


by Nautilator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:04:39 PM EST

Re: Kucinich (none / 0)

In a 3-way race, every little bit helps. Even more importantly, getting support from an opposing candidate cound be taken as a sign of momentum for Obama.

It's funny because had Kucinich thrown his support to Edwards, this would've been hyped to incredible levels, just like every other little thing here that "proves" that Edwards is gaining momentum in Iowa and is going to come out on top.


by Nautilator on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards supporters are delusional. (none / 0)

The highly respected Des Moine Register poll finds Obama ahead of John "Lionel Hutz" Edwards?

Polling methodology flawed.

Dennis Kucinich says if not me vote for Obama?

Kucinich a meaningless twit angry at being outflanked on the left.

NEWSFLASH! Edwards is not gonig to be president.


by nerdoff on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you agree (none / 0)

Edwards is not going to be President?


by nerdoff on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I reckon so (none / 0)

So, 6 OUT OF EVERY 10 CAUCUS GOERS is going to be a first-timer, according to the Gannett Company?  6 out of every 10???

4.5 out of 10 were first timers in 2004. 4 out of 10 were first timers in 2000. So how many first timers do you think there'll be this year? (if these figures are correct.)

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_accura te_were_the_iowa_pol.php


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:21:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I reckon so (none / 0)

No I agree. I would suppose it would depend upon the weather. If it's a beautiful winter night, people will turn out.

If those turn out to be the numbers, then Obama walks on water.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I reckon so (none / 0)

So somewhere between 45 and 60% of up to 200000 voters will be first timers. I'm glad I don't have to crunch the numbers.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Taylor Marsh has some good insights (none / 0)

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

I have said all along -- Democrats decide Democratic contests.  Not independents and not Republicans.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:06:34 PM EST

Re: Taylor Marsh has some good insights (none / 0)

Just remember, when they go to caucus, they have to change their voter registration affiliation if they aren't already a registered Democrat.  Bringing these people home to the Democratic Party is a good thing.


by novademocrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (2.00 / 1)

It is almost humorous how anyone who supports Barack Obama is automatically labeled as either lacking in intellect or not a real progressive. Now Dennis Kucinich, whom most would argue has the most progressive record among all Democrats is being questioned as either an egotistical whiner or just irrelevant. Somehow I suspect had he backed Edwards again, headlines would be screaming about what a wonderful progressive and man of conviction he is. This whole piece attempts to impugn Kucinich's reason's for supporting Obama based on absolutely no evidence. Sad. You would hope for a higher level of journalistic integrity here but unfortunately, not.

By the way, the relevance of Kucinich is not his number in IA, it is the fact that he is willing to endorse Barack Obama. I guess he views him as a true progressive.


by commoncents on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:17:14 PM EST

Re: It'll matter more than we think ... (2.00 / 1)

I agree with Bowers that the Kucinich factor won't help Obama as much as it helped Edwards in 2004, but I think it's too narrow to just look at his 1% support and assume that's teh only impact it will have.

A lot of progressive Democrats like Kucinich, but have never identified as supporters because he's a "fringe" candidate.  His endorsement of Obama lends a certain "stamp of approval" for these voters, many of whom have been torn between Edwards and Obama.  All things considered, I wouldn't underestimate it.

Joe Biden told the Washington Post that he might also tell his people to vote for Obama.  If that happens, it's huge.  Goodbye Hillary!!


by Paul Hogarth on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:41:55 PM EST

Re: It'll matter more than we think ... (none / 0)

I agree that if Biden and/or Richardson made this deal, it would be much more meaningful.  Both of these candidates will have several supporters in multiple precincts and could sway the caucus to one of the front runners.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It'll matter more than we think ... (none / 0)

This argument just makes me laugh! Good for Edwards if he has sold this used car of a line that he is the true outsider. You know the only reason he is an "outsider" is because he couldn't win nomination in 2004 and would not have held up to a re-election in North Carolina. Being a two-time loser does make you a certain kind of outsider.

I am just sick of sitting here in Iowa and listen to John Edwards try to take the moral high road over the past four years when it has been politically convinient to sit back and change all his positions to pander to everyone. What makes you so sure that he does not change his pander tune again when he "re-enters" the mainstream?


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It'll matter more than we think ... (none / 0)

I hate to address this absurd talking point for the millionth time, but there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Edwards would have lost his re-election bid.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

People, people......if the democrats are going to win the white house, they better wake up and realize its not gonna happen with Hillary. Obama and Edwards are the best candidates in either party and the best suited to run this country today. As a republican I will vote for either one, but wont vote for Hillary.....doesnt that say something?


by adb67 on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:10:10 PM EST

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

I love it when you speak with great certainty about something that is unkown and unkowable.

The available evidence suggests that Obama, with his authenticity, charisma, and appeal to independents, is extremely well placed for a general election triumph.

You are either arrogant, or racist, or both.


by upper left on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

here's why (none / 0)

Remember Edwards "pledge" website -- "promise not to vote/caucus for anyone who has accepted lobbyist/PAC money?"

Kucinich has accepted PAC money from labor PACs.

Hence, Edwards' people cannot vote for Kucinich.

Hence, Kucinich has no reason to help Edwards.

[Same is true of Dodd, Biden, Richardson.]


by Adam B on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:29:59 PM EST

Question (none / 0)

Will Kucinich also bring along the UFO vote?


by nascardem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:33:14 PM EST

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

At the debate Kucinich said the reason that he voted against the Patriot Act was the HE READ IT. I forget how did Edwards vote on that bill? And didn't Edwards vote FOR the war? This is 2008-- when consistency and  integrity mean something.


by aiko on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:41:42 PM EST

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

But remember, this is John "former Senator" Edwards who finds it easy to take four years off and change position on all of his issues to pander.


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (2.00 / 2)

Yes, let's all pretend Obama would have voted against the Patriot Act, which passed the Senate 99-1.  Has he even claimed he would have voted against it?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

LOL


by Kingstongirl on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich Urges Iowa Supporters To Caucus For O (none / 0)

Actions speaks louder than words.


by aiko on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa Forecaster (none / 0)

I made a simulator and no matter what variation I try, Kucinich's announcement doesn't seem to matter. He has too little support in too many precincts, and where he does have more support (Jefferson County), he has enough to not need to throw it to Obama. But you can try it out the parameters for yourself.

http://winchell.org/iowademforecast.zip

This forecaster was inspired by desmoinesdem's detailed story about how the IA caucus functions  (http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/29/932 51/258).

So this forecaster tries to estimate how each of the 1700+ precincts will vote, revote, and eventually come up with the delegate count that is the only thing the news media will report about.

You pick a spreadsheet of precinct level info to load (the zip file has 6 based on different polls out in the past few days), choose how many times you want to run the sample (more times = less variation), and you can decide if you think Kucinich's announcement that his non-viable supporters should switch to Obama is relevant.

I tried loading poll data from a handful of polls (DesMoines, Strategic Vision, CNN, MSNBC, InsiderAdvantage, Bloomberg). The latter 3 provided a simple 2nd choice vote model. For DesMoines and Strategic Vision I used the MSNBC model and for CNN I used the less favorable for Edwards 2nd choice model from Bloomberg.

The other big factor is the likely geographical distribution of different candidate preferences and the skewing of voters per county delegate (you can see anywhere from 2 to 100 voters required to elect a single delegate). If Obama's geographical distribution is similar to Dean's in 2004, I think he suffers from the wacky voter per county delegate model that the Iowa caucus has.

Anyway, most of the polls show Edwards winning, or coming in very close after all this is taken into account. CNN's poll doesn't have a particularly strong reputation on pollster.com, but I tried today's poll and gave it the least favorable (for Edwards) 2nd choice data (Bloomberg's) and then Edwards was able to close the gap 4 points, but the 10 point lead CNN gave Obama was still too much.

Oh, and for the DesMoines poll data, I bumped up the attendence 20% because they seem to think Independents and first timers are going to be way out of proportion this time. It didn't matter much.

Let me know at jeffWinchell@Gmail.com if you have any feedback.


by TheWinch on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:59:33 AM EST

Re: Confused lefties (none / 0)

I find it amazing that so many on the left wing of the Dem party, and I consider myself a lefty,  have bought the meme that Obama is not a progressive.  You have been listening to the echoes, in your echo chamber, and have missed the first real progressive to have a chance to win the Presidency since RFK was assasinated.

Edwards is a good guy, and I will be happy if he shocks me and wins the nomination; but Edwards chances are extremely thin.  

Meanwhile, Obama is the real deal with a real chance to win the Oval Office and build a progressive majority.  Kucinich obviously "gets it."  

The fact that so many of you do not should give you pause.  Perhaps you have missed the essence of Obama's campaign.  Perhaps you have not read his books or examined his life choices.  Perhaps you have not looked at his voting record.  Perhaps you have been bamboozled by those who confuse partisanship for progress.

Obama is the best thing to come along on the American left in a generation and more than half of the left is too confused to recognize this fact.  It is either incredibly funny or incredibly sad.  

If Obama wins Iowa, I predict that he will go on to become the most progressive President since FDR.  If Edwards wins Iowa, I predict that Hillary Clinton will bounce back and go ont to win the nomination and loose to McCain.  

Think about the risks if I am right.  


by upper left on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:48:26 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.