Kucinich Urges Supporters To Choose Obama On Second "Ballot"

On Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich might actually swing the results of the caucus, which is why I'm passing this along.

Kucinich's supporters could help Obama in non-liberal precincts where the two or three Kucinich supporters could wind up enlarging Obama's preference groups just enough to get that extra delegate...

Note: Last cycle, the Edwards and Kucinich campaigns agreed to tell their supporters to join each other's preference groups if one or the other didn't make "threshold." Edwards advisers now believe that the deal hurt them more than it helped them.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

DES MOINES, IA– 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 Senator 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."

Comments

How did the agreement with Kucinich hurt Edwards in 2004 ? Out of curiosity, not out of spite. What's the reasoning ? Kucinich is ... weird ... but he can't be that much of a turn-off for others in a caucus setting, can he ?

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 3:44 PM

I think the theory was that Edwards ended up having his supporters defect to Kucinich in the really liberal districts, which cost him more delegates than getting Kucinich supporters gained him

Posted by BobJones | January 1, 2008 3:50 PM

Interesting. Is there any evidence to bear that line of thought ? Has this theory been around for long ? Coz the first time I ever heard of it was this weekend on this very blog.

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 3:55 PM

It isn't obvious from Kucinich's statement that Obama has asked his supporters to reciprocate in caucus sites where Obama doesn't reach the viability threshold after the first round. Moreover, I would think the really liberal sites this time around might prefer Edwards, who may have been helped by Nader's endorsement.

Posted by jsrutstein | January 1, 2008 4:07 PM

If they think Kucinich was a turn-off last time, I can guarantee you Ralph Nader pisses off WAY more of us. It actually makes me LESS sympathetic to Edwards. I also sort of resented his class warfare rhetoric but if Nader approves then I know he is going off the deep end !

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 4:21 PM

Yes, the difference here is that Kucinich is just telling his supporters that he thinks Obama is the best alternative.
He's not doing a political game like in 2004.

This will really help Obama. It's equivalent to getting an early endorsement from Kucinich. It'll have much more weight than Nader's, who is still hated for the most part amongst Democrats.

Posted by Mike | January 1, 2008 4:22 PM

Benjamin - I totally agree with you. Edwards was my second choice, and now he's not. His central platform revolves around taking on special interests, yet they are helping him in Iowa to the tune of $2M. That is just wrong and hypocritical. Then, he called Musarraf? What a really stupid thing to do. He holds no official postion - he's a private citizen! People who actually know him and hold elected office right now didn't call because they knew it was inapporpriate. And then Edwards at every campaign stop this weekend brought up Pakistan and this call, but tells the crowd that candidates shouldn't politicize the situation. Huh? Now, with Nader's endorsement, the guy has lost all my respect.

Posted by Susie | January 1, 2008 4:27 PM

Meanwhile, union heads are blasting at Obama for his latest comments on 527s, and Kos has retracted his endorsement of the IL Senator.

Posted by Daniel | January 1, 2008 5:03 PM

That Campaign Diaries you link to would be very interesting except that the content of the entry lists all the biffs Obama has with "Washington liberals" (and yes, even if he would hate admitting it, Kos is part of the Dem. power structure now) not "Iowa liberals".
And I don't quite understand what, in his quote, is supposed to be offensive to Gore.
We may like Gore a lot now but the bottom line is if he had won more clearly, Bush wouldn't have been able to pull off his steal. That's what Barry is saying. No more 50+1. No more polarizing like Hillary and Gore were - through no fault of their own. If he wins thanks to independents, what does that say about his November appeal ? It says great things !
I have stopped reading Kos in the past few weeks because all he does now is complain, complain, complain. Nothing positive. Only things that make him mad about fellow Democrats. Gets tiresome. JMO.

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 5:11 PM

NO more Clinton dynasty, McCain's Politics of Fear, Edward's Phony tactics and corrupted Health Industry.

ITS SICKENING.

Also its time to end 20 years of Clinton/Bush political
dynasty.

!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!

Hillary Clinton Voted for War on Iraq.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.

Hillary Clinton recently labelled Iran as a terrorist country.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.

Hillary Clinton supported Bush on aid to Pakistan for wrong reasons.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.

BARACK OBAMA's JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY's WRONG EXPERIENCE.

!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!

Posted by Kelly | January 1, 2008 5:15 PM

If you look at the polls from the 2004 Iowa caucuses, it seems pretty clear that Kucinich actually helped Edwards a lot:

"Most observers attribute much of the six-point gain for Edwards to a deal struck on caucus morning between the Kucinich and Edwards campaigns that sent most Kucinich supporters into the Edwards camp on the second round."

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_accurate_were_the_iowa_pol.php

Posted by joe@2parse | January 1, 2008 5:23 PM

Kucinich polls low, but i think it's just because dems don't think an elf can win in the general. (just jokin)

I think this really could help Obama. Surely there are people for whom Kucinich was their preferred candidate, but (like me) just don't think he's electable. I'm already supporting Obama, but if i was supporting Edwards, for instance, because i didn't think Kucinich could win, i might switch to Obama.

Posted by julie | January 1, 2008 5:30 PM

Oh, my. I'm going to read the blogs, and pop some corn.

GoBama!

Posted by JenJen | January 1, 2008 5:30 PM

This is if Kucinich has more than 100 Iowa supporters, a big if...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 1, 2008 5:48 PM

Clinton wrong (completely) on Pakistan:

Why is MSM not covering?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/blogtalk-debates-and-elections/

Posted by eorse | January 1, 2008 6:06 PM

Kucinich endorses Obama for 2nd Choice to himself in Iowa !
Good for you Kucinich !
Good for Iowa !
Great for America !

Barack Obama for President .

It’s time to Rise and Shine again.

Posted by PulSamsara | January 1, 2008 6:47 PM

Even though I am an Obama supporter and pointing this out might hurt my guy, I think it is important to point out that this raises some serious questions about th integrity of the Iowa Caucuses.

The issues at hand here, is whether out-of-planet extraterrestrials should be allowed to participate in the Iowa caucuses, even if they have spent the majority of their time in this solar system buzzing the cornfields of Iowa.

Unlike with out-of-state Iowa college students, Iowa law is not really clear on this issue.

I think it's time for David Yepsen to write a breathless column about how "It's the Earth's Iowa Caucuses, not the Martian Illinois caucuses!"

Posted by RKA | January 1, 2008 8:06 PM

Good point julie.

Kucinich is well respected among progressives, unlike Nader. His views are more in line with most of them; they just don't see him as electable. Kucinich has just annointed Obama as the electable alternative.

Posted by Mike | January 1, 2008 8:20 PM

People are so gullible arguing Clinton’s and Edwards’ talking points with respect to criticizing the DMR poll. The DMR has not changed their polling methods since 2004 or ALL YEAR. Ann Selzer, the pollster (she conducted the poll in 2004 as well), has said so 50 times. When Edwards and Clinton were ahead earlier this year they weren’t questioning the poll’s “methods” now they’re behind and they are trying to start a media war over the results of the poll. It’s hilarious.

Posted by Ava | January 1, 2008 8:47 PM

Is this true ? Was that same dem/rep/ind composition than earlier polls ?
I am an Obama supporter but I find that surprising for a number of reasons. The reasoning of Ms Selzer is that indie are starting to respond to Barry and expressing more interest in participating which means they amped up the number of them in the sample.
And I would think *someone* would have pointed that detail out earlier since almost every journalist has been ragging against the poll all day long.

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 8:50 PM

I just found an interesting tidbit on the website of the Hoover Institution regarding the number of independents:

“Twenty-five states that record voter registration by party report a surge in independent/nonpartisan registration between 2000 and 2004 averaging 21 percent, compared to 7 percent for Democrats and 5–6 percent for Republicans. In such deep blue states as Massachusetts and Connecticut, independents became the largest category of registered voters some years ago.”

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/10679671.html

Over the past year, I’ve heard it repeated on the news several times that there’s been a surge in people changing their party affiliation from democrat/republican to independent. This website shows it’s true. These independents didn’t just pop up out of nowhere. Many of them are disaffected previous democrats/republicans who changed their party affiliation. The thing though is that even when they become an “independent” many still lean more toward one party than the other (often their original party).

Maybe there’s nothing wrong with the DMR poll at all.

Posted by Ava | January 1, 2008 9:43 PM

The problem isn't that independant turn Democrats in general. The problem they seem to have with the poll is the assumption those independants will actually show up at the caucus and vote, which until now they rarely did. Not to the extent the poll implies anyway.

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 9:54 PM

In 2004, DK's agreement with Edwards made it so Edwards picked up another delegate in my caucus. DK had 5 supporters. 4 (I think) switched to Edwards on the second vote. It pushed him up enough to receive another delegate. It was Kerry 4, Edwards 3, Dean 2.

It does matter.

It also surprised me that most of his supporters actually did it since Edwards was still quite pro-Iraq War at that time.

Posted by Kristi | January 1, 2008 10:11 PM

I hope the reporters are covering Edwards tomorrow night at about this time. After 36 hrs. without sleep, he'll probably be doing stuff like biting the head off of a bat (named "Corporate Interests").

Posted by lampwick | January 1, 2008 11:50 PM

How messed up are Edwards' supporters? Really? This was a VP choice who couldnt even carry his own state. I think its just a case of either "not receiving enough info or closing your mind and believing all that muck he is gushing"
Populist message my as#: voted for Iraq, Nafta, No child left behind while leaving the money behind, tightening of bankruptcy laws...all with apologies..common Iowans, can we do better?
Clinton, Obama, Biden all the way.
You have to read the email Biden sent out last week vis a vis JRE.

Posted by John Edwards | January 2, 2008 12:42 AM

This is the reason I love this man, and I don't just say that because he is throwing his support to Senator Obama, but he really is a man that is really concerned about his country and wants to make sure that even if he can't make it to the white house, that the right person does.

Posted by Reda StCyr | January 2, 2008 1:02 AM

Kuch and Obama have so little in common, I'm completely devastated.

Kuch was my pick, with Edwards as the Prez, and Kuch as the VP.

Obama never figgered in, given HIS corporatist and industrialist and NON Middle Class interests.

That Kuch would skwirrel Edwards greatly alarms me.

The progressives are only showing great disunity. And we will NOT get habeus, the middle class, and a homebuilding centric outta Obama, Clinton or anyone else the Pubs put up.

Times are hard.

Posted by larue | January 2, 2008 2:24 AM

Kucinich is well respected among progressives, unlike Nader

This progressive was upset with Nader's decision to run in 2004 because by then, he was a polarizing distraction to the effort to dump Bush. But I had no complaint with his run in 2000. It wasn't Nader who stole that election.

And as well-meaning a guy as Kucinich is, Nader's been far more effective in aiding Americans during his career as a consumer advocate.

I tend to believe that long time progressives can weigh results objectively and that many - like me - consider him to be a pioneering crusader who's saved millions of lives, which few elected politicians can claim.

Both, btw, were quite slow to embrace pro-women's rights positions. that, to me, remains the correct criticism of either.

So please don't characterize how all progressives think. I've worked lifelong on progressive issues and there are few public individuals I respect as much as Nader. He's stood up against power and won - repeatedly.

Eisenhower - hardly a liberal extremist - warned against the military industrial complex. It rules our government and will continue to do so unless we get scrappers in there to rein them in.

Edwards will. Obama won't. Like JFK and RFK, he'll get blocked by the status quo for several years till he learns that fighting effectively is the only way progression occurs.

Most who think otherwise believe the wheel can be invented all over again. There's a distinct difference between progressive idealism and progressive pragmatism.

Edwards didn't win his own state? Bull. Voters select the top of the ticket. NC is such a conservative state that no moderate or liberal Dem won a Senate seat there in a century before Edwards did. Kerry couldn't corral them. Anyone who thinks a VP has a say in how to run the campaign is obviously a rookie at electoral politics.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | January 2, 2008 2:55 AM

Benjamin, if you support Senator Obama why then are you calling him Barry? Anyone who calls him Barry raises a red flag. His name is Barack, and if you respect him and support him like you claim, then call him by his real name.

Posted by Vote Hope | January 2, 2008 4:11 AM

To Kevin Hayden
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't give two fucks about what you have done for the progressive cause in your life time. Neither do I care about your knowledge of "electoral politics". (You aren't as knowledgeable politically as Biden, are ya?)
The matter of the fact is that Kucinich is regarded as the most progressive guy in the race and for all its worth, he understands the progressive movement and its aspirations more than you.
Keep in mind that Nader isn't well regarded in most democratic circles so where you get your bizarre ideas from...only you know.
Plus remember the fact that everyone can come online making stupid statements about how they have fought for progressive causes all their life...what they have done, who they held meetings with.... when in truth they are but tramps with a laptop.
The dissapointment of Kucinich not endorsing Edwards may be bad for anyone but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support the eventual nominee. Clinton or Obama at their most conservative are more progressive than putting 3 Alitos in the supreme court.
I have always said this and I will say it, one of the reasons we have not captured the White house in recent times is probably bcos there a lot of independents who don't really care for an ultra-liberal country. There have been times when I think we may have taken extreme positions on sexuality. This yr it seems its gonna be the stupid pundits who are going to ruin it. The fools (like you) know nothing but to tear dem candidates down while touting their enless credentials and understanding of the progressive movement.
You "pundits" are but interfering twats. Most democrats will do anything fot any of the current crop of candidates to get to the White House. But look at the way the pundits have treated Clinton...and Krugman's spat with Obama. Who is Krugman by the way...a college graduate with a website.

Posted by John Edwards | January 2, 2008 7:10 AM

Kevin Hayden
Perhaps if the electorate would elect those who are well-meaning instead of thost who look/sound good, Kucinich would be far more effective in aiding Americans during his career as an advocate for common sense.
c woof

Posted by c woof | January 2, 2008 7:19 AM

The real value of Kucinich's "endorsement" of Obama is not in the number of delegates it might affect, but rather as a credible "seal of approval" from a true progressive. That's valuable to Oabama because one of the main knocks on him within the dem party is that he's too moderate, too conciliatory toward republicans, etc. Kucinich shores up Obama's progressive credibility and may very well ease some doubts among the more liberal caucusers. For this reason, I think Kucinich's endorsement is more valuable and helpful to Obama than it would have been to any other candidate.

Posted by TB | January 2, 2008 11:50 AM

I was Dennis Kucinich's Iowa Director in 2004. His agreement with Edwards to support each other without question benefited Edwards. There were numerous precincts where Kucinich supporters had a strong presence, but not enough to meet the 15% threshold required to win delegates. Not all went to Edwards, but most did, sometimes in fairly large groups. There were very few places where Edwards supporters moved to the Kucinich camp. Edwards definitely came out ahead the deal, I'd guess to the tune of several percentage points.

This go around, former Kucinich supporters are mostly split between Obama and Edwards. While I'm a strong Obama supporter myself, Edwards has won a large chunk of support from progressives because of his shift to more progressive, populist rhetoric and positions from his last campaign, and days in the US Senate. Kucinich's endorsement of Obama sends a signal that Obama is the progressive change candidate among those at the top of the pack, despite Edwards attempt to claim that space.

Posted by John | January 2, 2008 11:50 AM

"Eisenhower - hardly a liberal extremist - warned against the military industrial complex. It rules our government and will continue to do so unless we get scrappers in there to rein them in.

Edwards will. Obama won't. Like JFK and RFK, he'll get blocked by the status quo for several years till he learns that fighting effectively is the only way progression occurs."

Based on what, exactly? I keep on hearing from Edwards supporters that he somehow has these policies, yet I never see what is apparently so obvious. When was Edwards fighting effectively for the Democrats, when he was a DLC darling or when he lost an election as VP? Was it when he was listening to Bob Shrum to vote for the Iraq War? Edwards started his 2004 campaign on the Daily Show and yet when he let Cheney just smack him around in the debate, Jon Stewart accurately summed up Edwards's approach as "golly! gee!" Don't confuse rhetoric with policy. After all, that's what a lot of the media is doing with Huckabee, painting him as a Christian working class crusader, while ignoring his actual history.

Posted by Reality Man | January 2, 2008 1:58 PM

If we can't be polite to each other on line, how can we address issues that are of consequence to our nation and our communities?
Listen to the abuse you are hurling at one another simply because you disagree.

Posted by Jane Werner | January 2, 2008 2:04 PM

Obama voted for the Peru trade deal, which makes me think that Kucinich has lost his mind.

The corporate media wants either Clinton or Obama to be the candidate because they think Republicans can beat either because Clinton is a woman and Obama is black ... both lose the south because of this.

Besides, Clinton is a DLC Democrat which is pretty much like a Republican. See The Death of the Middle Class.
Edwards, next to Kucinich is the most progressive. See The Political Spectrum - 2007 Primaries.

Edwards is the one Kucinich should back.

Posted by Robert Powell | January 2, 2008 2:44 PM

Please, folks. Vote based on who you think would be the best president, not based on endorsements, either pro or con. My second choice after Kucinich is Edwards, and that doesn't change just because he didn't get Kucinich's endorsement. I mean, please, I was given my own brain to use, not Dennis Kucinich's. (The same idea holds if someone I didn't like endorsed someone...the endorsement means nothing to me whatsoever.)

Posted by Andrew | January 2, 2008 3:44 PM

I quite agree with Andrew: Kucinich is my choice for president, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for whomever he endorses. Mr. Kucinich is as human, therefore as fallible, as I am, and we all have to make our own choices and take responsibility for them. President Kucinich for me, but if he withdraws from the race I'll decide THEN whom to gift with my vote.

Posted by Guinnevere | January 2, 2008 4:05 PM

Sorry, but I firmly disagree with many of the commenter's about Kucinich's decision yesterday to stand with Obama in Iowa. That was a sickening punch to the stomach which has made me reconsider my endorsement of his judgement and sincerity. I would like to see a list of common grounds that Kucinich sees between he and Obama. He sure had me fooled!

Now, I'm looking for the next best alternative gleaned from an Independent candidate, unless Edwards is the Democrat's choice. If we want change and hope to discontinue the status quo, it will not come from either of the Corporation's Candidate Choices: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The American people are in desperate need of someone in Washington, in politics, who puts their needs first!

Posted by Noel | January 2, 2008 4:45 PM

Obama supports the development of new nuclear power plants. Edwards does not. DEnnis, you disappoint me.

Posted by Demetria | January 2, 2008 5:05 PM

As a NH voter I was torn between Kucinich ( who idealistically i agree with more) and Obama ( who I prefer to Edwards, and Clinton). His press release may say this arrangement should have no effect on NH but for me it shows he isn't in it to win it (or rather to attract as much support as possible and thereby illustrate the small but important group of voters not entirely happy with the top tier candidates) His decision has made me feel a lot less conflicted about voting for Obama on Jan 8th.

Posted by NHVoter | January 2, 2008 6:33 PM

I was an admirer of Dennis K. until his last move. What makes him think Obama is ready to be president? Ridiculous..

Posted by mdennis | January 2, 2008 6:35 PM

I was quite surprised that Dennis supported Mr. Obama, and have great difficulty not understanding why Bill Richardson is not endorsed by more progressive voters. He has a strong diplomatic background. He is a strong supporter of the environmental movement. He will get us out of Iraq and very quickly. He has a good policy where immigration is concerned. And he is strongly supportive of health care for all. What is going on that he isn't mentioned like the big three are? Dennis would have my support but I truly do not believe that he stands a chance. Therefore, I support Bill Richardson.

Posted by Jerry | January 2, 2008 10:47 PM

The big lies thanks Kucinich? All lies to get votes!!!

There goes the single payer not for profit health care plan!

Still going to be in Iraqi forever! Our only hope here is the green party! GO GREEN PARTY FOR PRESIDENT!!!

There goes free daycare, free college!

There goes the american budget down the tubes

Now bush, chaney and pelosi gets a free ride with no one to check them now or and when they leave office! NO CRIMINAL CHARGES NO ACCOUNTABLILITY FOR WRECKING THE CONSTITUTION!!

If you thought the hearings were a joke now wait!

Yes Dennis you talked a big game so we were suckers

NO MORE DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS FOR ME!!!!!

GO GREEN PARTY!!!!

Posted by the madd blogger | January 2, 2008 10:48 PM

I support Kucinich, he is currently my first choice.
I was a bit surprised to see Kucinich pick Obama. Up until this point, I though Edwards would be the next alternative. Now, I am reconsidering my second choice because of Kucinich's suggestion. However, I would like to know in greater detail why Obama over Edwards. K's main reason so far is that Obama represents "change". I can see that, but its still a little vague. It does trouble me if Obama supports new nuclear reactors.
Also, I do respect Richardson's sound judgement on diplomatic and international issues and alternative energy initiatives [however, he seems to have hinted to supporting Hillary, I think he wants to be her choice for VP].
Environmental issues are my top priority in the world. I also support what the Green Party stands for.

I suggest no more "winner take all" "Democracy". Lets have a direct democracy where individual votes are represented. If "losers" were still represented in the outcome of the vote people would be more able to vote their conscience, we would have real representation reflected, we would have more engagement instead of isolation, and the two party system would be overcome by diversity and multy-dimensionalism.

We need to reform our Electoral Democracy!

Posted by voter | January 3, 2008 11:25 AM