Is This Why Dennis Kucinich Doesn't Poll Higher???

There's a lot of theories as to why Dennis Kucinich hasn't been registering well in the polls, but look at this:

My New Hampshire phone rings (caller ID 000-000-0000 WTF?)and I pick it up out of curiosity. "This is (talking like a magpie so I haven’t got a clue what the name of the company is) Research. Would you like to be part of a poll for the Democratic presidential primary candidate?" I agree and the woman rapidly reads the list of candidates. "Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and Richardson." I say, "Kucinich." The woman on the phone says "Who?" I say, "Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich." I hear coaching in the background - apparently the call is being monitored. "I’m sorry, but Dennis Kucinich is not on our list. Is there anyone on the list I gave you who you would vote for?"

So there you have it. Kucinich is down in the polls because he isn’t included in the polls . . . and you can forget about Gravel, too.

Now, I can't say for sure whether or not this is true, but given some of the ways in which Kucinich has been discriminated against so far in this election, his name not being on the pollster's list seems entirely plausible to me. Consider the following:

1.)Kucinich is regularly considered as "third tier" behind Richardson, Biden and Dodd. Though, the criteria for such an evaluation is absolutely lacking. Kucinich polls ahead of Dodd in pretty much every poll that I've seen and trades places with both Richardson and Biden depending on the given poll. The most honest way to describe it would be to say that, below the top three "frontrunners", all is uncertain.

2.)The media regularly neglects Kucinich even in issues of factual claims. For example, months ago, when John Edwards first released his health care plan, both he and the majority of media frequently claimed that he was the only one to release a plan with detail. Yet, Kucinich's H.R. 676 had already gained the support of over 60 Represenatitives and 14,000 physicians.

This is similar to Gov. Richardson and the media claiming that the Governor is the only candidate who will withdraw ALL troops from Iraq, even though Kucinich has been talking about this for months.

3.)The media not only regularly neglects Kucinich from factual claims as stated above, and coverage in general, but has even been involved in incidents of willful distortion. If you arent't familiar with the ABC debacle, involving cropping of pictures and tampering with polls, please read about it here.

4.)Media outlets, Debate Forums and other organizations have gone out of their way to heavily restrict and/or completely eliminate Kucinich from the debate themselves. Examples inculde the above ABC debate in which Stephanopholous didn't ask Kucinich for about a half an hour and the most recent elimination from the health care debate, sponsored by AARP. It is important to note that AARP is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, spending over $36 million alone in 2005 lobbying Congress, as well as playing a part in the passage of the Medicare Part D legislation in 2003. As Kucinich, is the only candidate to call for the elimination of the private insurance system his elimination probably has far less to do with thier excuse.

So, forgive me if I see some plausibility in the possible pollster fraud. The fact is, Dennis Kucinich is taking on the most powerful organizations in the country: Military-Industrial, Insurance and pharmaceutical Companies, Corporate Trade Agreements for starters. However, as powerful as these sectors are we still have the power of votes; we have numbers. And it is time to stand up with Dennis Kucinich and take back our country. It's time to use our numbers against their dollars. It's time to support Dennis Kucinich!

ABC Tampers With Post Debate Poll After Kucinich Wins

The Kucinich Campaign sent a letter requesting an explanation regarding the suspect treatment on the ABC website of a post debate poll. Essentially, the poll asked voters to decide who won the Iowa debate airing on ABC and moderated by George Stephanopholous.

Apparently, as the results started to favor Kucinich the poll was removed from the website. After complaints, the poll was then replaced with another, which Kucinich then topped as well. The poll then was transferred to a less accessible position on the site and, effectively buried. That is, ABC never reported on it's own poll! Further, the debate photo on the ABC website noticeably cropped Kucinich out of the picture: the only candidate cropped out.

ABC never got back to the Kucinich Campaign or admitted any wrongdoing, only "mistakes"... For a full detailed rundown and reasons as to why these weren't "mistakes", go here.

Kucinich Wins Iowa Debate According to ABC Poll

This is amazing! And, I'm starting to think a turning point not only for the Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign, but the way Americans are viewing this election.

ABC, which televised the Iowa Debate, had an internet poll to decide who won. The totals, as of today-7:00 pm Pacific, have Kucinich in first place with about 12,500 votes. He's ahead of second place Obama, who has about 9,000. So, Kucinich is a whopping 3,000 votes in the lead. More to the point, if you added up Clinton's, Biden's and Edwards' votes (3rd, 4th and 5th respectively), Kucinich would still be in the lead!

Now, to me, the significance of this poll is not so much Kucinich winning. The poll is not scientific and further refers specifically to the debate and not the primary, so I'm not trying to argue that, if the primary were held today, it would in any way reflect the outcome. However, there is significance.

The overwhelming response to this is a sign that people are fed up with a corporate media forcing certain candidates into the center, marginalizing alternative and equally viable voices, and ultimately trying to decide our elections. The response shows a public distrustful of current process and taking action to change it! I mean, really, one can't help but see Kucinich's plight at yesterdays debate as that of the American people themselves: He was allowed to attend, but utterly silenced. No wonder he is the candidate who represents the issues of so many Americans who are calling for an actual end to the occupation of Iraq, true universal-single payer-healthcare, defending the constitution and civil liberties, ending disastrous trade agreements that outsource jobs, etc. The American people know the frustration Kucinich must have experienced in Iowa. The American people know about being silenced.

Unfortunately, ABC (as other branches in the MSM) knows how to silence. "Tie Goes to Frontrunner" is on the ABC Politics front page The article goes on about how Clinton didn't win, but didn't lose either. Apparently, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson all had strong performances. But, the article doesn't even mention the poll though. So they never reported on their own poll? Do you think it would if any of the "frontrunners" had won?

Actually, the poll which used to be on the front page is now available in the bottom of "audience favorites". Apparently they had some troubles, earlier judging by the comments, because for a bit the poll numbers changed with Kucinich's votes diappearing, but then changed back? Whatever happened though you should read the comments to the article. If you think what I'm writing about people being angry and fed up is extreme, please read them before you decide. What's amazing is not any single comment itslef: Not the one denoucing the overwhelming coverage of the "fronturnners", not one claiming the MSM is afraid of Kucinich, who stands for the people more than any of the other candidates, not even the one telling ABC they will not be deciding this election. What's amazing is the unity in the responses. America is distrusful and beginning to become really angry. America is ready to hear different voices and ready for change. America is, well, ready for Dennis Kucinich.

The Corporate Media and the Election

I saw a list from MSNBC ranking the Democratic cadidates in descending order, as follows: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel.

The post didn't discuss the candidates or their policies, even intimating that the lack of a stance was unimportant! So for my first diary entry, Iwas wondering:

From what criterion is this list made? Well, first go to www.opensecrets.org and check out the fundraising rankings for these same candidates. You'll see that the ranking is identical, with the exception of Dodd and Richardson trading places. The interesting thing about www.opensecrets.org is that you can also break down their money by donors, corporate contributions and percentages of large vs. small amount donations. If you do this you will start to see a pattern that the "frontrunners" are also the top recipients of large individual donations, as well as corporate donations. Now, a few things to consider from this:

First, should the amount of money a candidate has actually mean more than the policies they propose and issues they support? I mean, the article said: " it doesn't matter that Obama lacks a health care plan, a comprehensive economic policy, any subtle foreign policy vision or even a concrete proposal to move the Middle East peace process forward". This is madness! Why wouldn't it matter? And just how could a candidate raise over 25 million without having definite plans on these things? WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE DONORS SUPPORTING?

And this brings us to a second consideration. If these "top candidates", even this early, have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from big special interests like the insurance and oil industries, pharmaceuticals etc. what will that mean in the shaping of policy?

Further, I would consider how the media shapes these campaigns in general. You can start by re-reding this article! The media is bogged down by special interests as well. They shape public opinion about who is electable, who has detailed plans etc.

Consider Dennis Kucinich. Many people don't know about his policies because the mainstream media doesn't cover them. The article didn't go out of its way either. But, the fact is he has many well reasoned and detailed positions on issues like healthcare, Iraq, the economy etc. Even cadidate Edwards has been quoted as claiming himself to be the only one with a detailed universal healthcare plan. But, this is patently false. Kucinich has co-authored a bill, HR 676, and introduced it to Congress, already gaining the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The bill would give ALL Americans comprehensive coverage while actually spending less. The way this works is by cutting out the private insurance companies with their 30% overhead-that's 30% of 2.2 trillion dollars. But, therein lies the problem; the profound influence of the healthcare industry prevents the media from covering it and any other candidate from proposing such a system.

But, we can't let special interests decide our government for us. Do you know how a corrupt government could be done away with? The same way that absurdly childish porpularity contests, headlined by those the corporate media calls "electable", and vapid power rankings such as this one could:

The public educates itself!