>> Andrei wrote:
>> I think this whole thing about how Kucinich can't win/is not electable
>>
>>> will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've heard so many people say those
>>> things, even though they agree with his views, that it makes me
>>> think he
>>> would actually have a much better chance if all those people
>>> supported him
>>> instead of making all these assumptions about what OTHERS think or how
>>> they might vote.
>>
>> He's been in all the televised debates so far. He doesn't get much
>> press coverage other than that, but that's still more exposure than
>> Nader got in 2000.
>
> Once Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley Braun get trounced in the early
> primaries and quit campaigning, there will be only shamelessly
> centrist voices -- with some outright hawkish stances, as the
> remaining candidates will increasingly pitch to the right, as soon as
> they believe they have already bagged the loyal opposition who have
> nowhere else to go -- in the televised debates.
That's probably true. And not to sound like some _New Republic_ neocon, but this may be reflective of the Democratic party rank-and-file as well. As Doug pointed out, Kucinich has had a fair amount of exposure to the mainstream, in some ways more than Nader had in 2000. And he hasn't made much of an impact within the Democratic party. There are obviously factors which work against radical voices (say, which candidates are likely to attract big-money donations), but the central question is which candidate can garner the most support among Democrats. It may be that most Democrats aren't as radical as we'd like them to be.