In 2006, Democrats took back control of Congress because of public outrage at George Bush and the War in Iraq.  But we should remember it almost didn’t happen – until August, when Ned Lamont proved that Democrats can galvanize that energy to beat an incumbent Senator in a primary.  Tomorrow, Pennsylvania Democrats will be asked to dump ex-Republican Arlen Specter – and in Arkansas, conservative Senator Blanche Lincoln also faces a primary challenge.  And just like Joe Lieberman, the Party establishment is circling the wagons in both states – with President Obama shooting a radio ad that claims Lincoln “took on big insurance companies” to pass health care.  A new poll shows that voters prefer Democrats over Republicans, which suggests that 2010 may not be the nightmare everyone fears.  But it also showed that voters hate incumbents.  If Democrats want to avoid a bloodbath in November, Specter and Lincoln must be defeated.

In a development that Democrats are celebrating, last week’s Associated Press poll found that voters prefer a “generic Democrat” over a “generic Republican” for Congress by a 45-40 margin.  That’s almost a complete reversal from last month, but the poll also shows a dangerous trend – only one-third would re-elect their own Congressmember.  Far from just Teabaggers on the right who are waging a Stalinist purge of Republicans, there is disenchantment on the left that explains the malaise.  And so far, the Democratic leadership and Obama White House are refusing to recognize it.

If Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter survive the Democratic primary, it will only get worse.  There is no guarantee Specter or Lincoln would beat their Republican challengers in November – in fact, odds are against it.  In Arkansas, Republican John Boozeman beats Lincoln by 14 points.  In Pennsylvania, Specter quit the GOP because right-winger Pat Toomey would beat him in the primary.  If they face each other in the general, Specter loses byeight points.

Does this mean their progressive challengers – Bill Halter in Arkansas, and Joe Sestak in Pennyslvania – would win?  Not necessarily, but the odds are much greater.  Match-up polls show both Democrats doing better against the Republican in November, but a more important metric is the “favorable/unfavorable” numbers.  As incumbents, Lincoln and Specter have high name-recognition – and voters don’t like them.  You can’t convince someone who’s already made up their mind to change it.  With Halter and Sestak, the outcome is more fluid – because voters will be open to persuasion come November.

Democratic elites always lecture progressive activists about “electability” – how we must temper our idealism and support for liberal candidates for the “greater good” of defeating Republicans.  And yet, Organizing for America – the President’s “field team” that helped him defeat Hillary Clinton and John McCain – is urging supporters to help Lincoln and Specter win the primary.  While I’m sure many of us would support Lincoln and Specter (albeit grudgingly) if they win the primary, to do so now is sick and counterproductive.

Let’s review things for a minute.  As a moderate Republican, Arlen Specter co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007 – but balked in 2009 because of pressure from the right-wing of his party.  After becoming a Democrat in April 2009, he nevertheless remained opposed to EFCA and did not repudiate his prior support for a flat tax when I asked him directly.  He’s been a decent Democratic vote over the past year, but only after Sestak opted to challenge him.

Blanche Lincoln’s record is even worse.  As the White House pushed for health care reform, she vowed to filibuster any bill that included a “public option” – even when her Arkansas constituents supported it.  In other words, she was entering in cahoots with Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans to block any vote on President Obama’s highest legislative priority – one he took so seriously that everything else had to wait.  If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a spine, this would have been treated as an act of war.

Senators rarely lose re-election – not to mention a primary in their own party – which is why it’s so hard to hold them accountable with a serious candidate.  When Joe Lieberman lost in 2006, it was the first time that a Democratic Senator failed to get re-nominated in fourteen years.  The fact that two incumbents now stand to get primaried in the same year is remarkable, and should be a serious “wake-up call” to the Democratic Party leaders.

But the leadership is circling the wagons – because the Senate is a “club” (often known as the world’s most exclusive club), and incumbents are terrified that a primary challenge to Lincoln and Specter could mean they’re next.  San Francisco readers will recall how the State Senate rallied around Carole Migden (despite her liabilities as an incumbent), when Mark Leno ran against her in 2008.  What we see right now at the national level is not all that different.

Like we’ve seen before, the task for progressives now is to save the Democratic Party from itself.  We will not see the glaring “enthusiasm gap” between Democrats and Republicans shrink if Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter win the primary.  They will stand to lose to a cadre of right-wing challengers in November, which will only embolden the Sarah Palin crowd to bring back the Bush Administration.  That’s why it’s so crucial to help Halter and Sestak.

Fortunately, you don’t have to be in Arkansas or Pennsylvania to help out.  MoveOn can help you call its Arkansas members, and recruit them to volunteer for Bill Halter.  Joe Sestak’s campaign website enables you to make virtual calls to Pennsylvania.  It is these tools that elected Barack Obama, and now we’re using them to rescue his legacy.

Of course, everyone knows that Joe Lieberman was a sore loser after Ned Lamont won the primary, stayed in the race as an independent and – with active support from Karl Rove – won re-election.  But the same won’t happen this time.  In both Arkansas and Pennsylvania, the deadlines to file as an independent candidate have already lapsed.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

As many of you know, over the last five days, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, in partnership with a number of progressive organizations and blogs including Senate Guru, asked those in the netroots, “Should a Draft Sestak movement be created to take on Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary?” The results are in and they are overwhelming.  85% of Pennsylvanian respondents and 86% of respondents nationally want Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Democratic Senate primary.  The poll has even gotten the attention of Congressman Sestak, as the PCCC points out: “I am honored that so many of you took the time to vote in the recent grassroots Straw Poll. Let me tell you, I and many others were paying attention. If I decide to run it will be in large measure because of the grassroots energy of so many people like you. Until I and my family make that decision, please accept my thanks and my best wishes as you continue be active participants in our people-powered democracy. Thank you so very much!” Due to such an overwhelming response, a Draft Sestak Fund has been created on ActBlue.  To contribute and further encourage Congressman Sestak to enter the race, click on the image below:

If you need any additional motivation to contribute to this effort to draft a real Democrat to oppose Specter in the primary, consider Specter’s actions since announcing his Party switch:

1) Specter opposed the Obama budget.

2) Specter opposed the “cramdown” mortgage/bankruptcy reform, siding with banks over families.

3) Specter reiterated his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.

4) Specter reiterated his opposition to President Obama’s nomination of Dawn Johnsen to the Office of Legal Counsel.

5) Specter announced his support for Republican Norm Coleman over Democratic Senator-elect Al Franken in Minnesota’s Senate race.

6) Specter promoted a website that appeared to raise money for cancer research but, in actuality, simply raised money for his campaign.

7) Specter denied reports that he told President Obama that he would be a “loyal Democrat” despite multiple reporters sticking to their story.

The netroots have displayed overwhelming support for Congressman Sestak to take on recently-Republican Arlen Specter.  Help the effort by contributing to the Draft Sestak Fund.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, working with a number of progressive organizations and blogs including Senate Guru, has put out a poll to gauge netroots interest – in California and all across the country – in supporting an effort to draft Congressman Joe Sestak to challenge recently-Republican Arlen Specter in the PA-Sen Democratic primary next year.  The poll will be open for the next four days, and provided are both pro and con arguments regarding a draft effort.  To read the arguments and vote in the poll, click the below link:

Tommorow is the day! We need to show our support for the only candidate supporting our Democracy: Dennis Kucinich.  

From the Kucinich Campaign:

On December 15th, 1791, our founders made history when this fledgling nation adopted the Bill of Rights – that sacred, powerful, and visionary statement that establishes our freedoms and guarantees our protections. Now, we have a chance to make history again and turn this Saturday, December 15th, into another turning point for this nation.  (Click here for a special message) Our grassroots supporters – the heart, soul, and lifeblood of this campaign – have launched an inspiring effort to raise millions of dollars on one day, December 15th, to show the nation and the world that we can’t be bullied, we won’t be bossed, and our voices will be heard throughout this campaign!.    A special message and a powerful video (click here) from video blogger and Kucinich supporter Davis Fleetwood:

With the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary fast approaching, December 15th is shaping up as a turning point for the Kucinich campaign. William Scott Hunter, a Kucinich supporter, started the ball rolling for a December 15th Dennis Kucinich “money bomb” with the potential to electrify the entire Presidential campaign. “Our goal is ambitious,” says Hunter, the organizer of www.December152007.com, “but it has to be in order to have the impact Kucinich deserves. In America, candidates are considered ‘electable’ or ‘unelectable’ based on their bank accounts. It’s pretty hard to argue that a guy who can raise $10,000,000 in one day is unelectable.”

And let us not forget what Kucinich’s leadership has been:

The only Democratic Candidate to oppose the War and the subsequent Occupation

The only Democratic Candidate to show the judgement and Constitutional integrity to vote against the Patriot Act

One of only six House members to vote against the Homegrow Terrorism Act

The only Democratic Candidate who is taking the threats to our Democracy seriously and actually holding this Administration accountable through Impeachment

The only Presidential Candidate offering a truly universal, not-for-profit health care system

The only Democratic Candidate who will cancel U.S. involvement in job killing, deficit building, human expoliting, environmental raping trade agreements, NAFTA/WTO

Really it goes on. We have seen this leadership. Kucinich has been the heart and soul of this party; the only Democrat willing to stand up for the party’s principles, rather than play party politics; the only one willing to put the Constitution and all Americans ahead of politics.

We need to support Dennis because he is speaking for us. And we need to support him now before it is too late. Please follow this link and make your $100 contribution tommorow, December 15th! Support Dennis Kucinich!

Well, after so many grossly unfair debate formats that virtually tell each audience which candidates they are supposed to be interested in, Dennis Kucinich finally figured out a way to highlight this fundamental absurdity to his own advantage: Socratic Irony!

After again not receiving a fair amount of time to the other candidates, when it was his turn to participate in a segment that called for each candidate to actually ask a question to any candidate they choose to, Kucinich managed to display that sense of sarcastic wit and pragmatic questioning that Socrates turned into philosophical method; a dialectic which both entertains an audience preoccupied with what will be shown to be absurdity, as well as instructs to something more rational.

What’s more, Kucinich asked a question no moderator ever would:

Are you the only candidate that is offering a single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system…”

That’s a question that we will not be hearing in any of the future debates, never mind the question of why the other candidates won’t take on the insurance/pharmaceutical companies and offer a single-payer, not-for-profit system like Kucinich or virtually every other major industrialized nation.

The media, just as our other Democratic Candidates, usually like to ignore the option. Whenever the issue does arise they mindlessly “argue” that it “cannot pass through Congress”, or more aggresively propogate the many false criticisms regarding the system.

For them I’ve put together this short Q&A that debunks the most common of these myths and further begs this issue: Why will no one besides Kucinich actually offer what is the most rational and comprehensive solution to our healthcare crisis?

Single-Payer and H.R. 676: Debunking the Myths

Here’s some responses to the false, but commonly made, criticisms of single-payer health care plans. H. R. 676 is a Congressional bill co-authored by Dennis Kucinich, has now gained over 75 cosponsors and the endorsements of powerful unions and organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, California Nurses, PNHP and One Care California, as well as Michael Moore. It would set up a national, not-for-profit, health care system in the United States and provide fully comprehensive health care to ALL Americans, including all primary, emergency and long term care, office visits, medication costs, dental, vision and mental health, as well as drug and alchohol counseling. Further it, eliminates all co-pays, deductibles and medication costs. It is the simplest, most reasonable and dependable solution for the U.S. health care crisis.

1.) We already spend so much on healthcare, so we can’t afford a universal healthcare system that covers everyone:

This is false. In fact, H.R. 676 spends $56 billion less each year, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. The reason is because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31% of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-healthcare related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate profit. H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3% administration cost, saving over $4oo billion a year. Utilizing this money is what makes true universal healthcare for all Americans possible.

2.) I’ve read about other countries with healthcare systems similar to H.R. 676 that have experienced rationing. Wouldn’t H.R. 676 lead to rationing:

No. There are quite a few things to be said about rationing, but first and foremost, H.R. 676 is designed to eliminate rationing. Though other countries operating with a single payer healthcare system have sometimes experienced rationing, they devote only half as much money towards the system. And that is the critical point involved here. Under H.R. 676, the U.S. will spend almost twice as much as other countries and get the best care because of it. Under the current private system, the U.S. also spends twice as much as any other country, yet ranks consistently lower on vital indicators of health, such as infant mortality, average lifespan, and rates of terminal illness like heart disease and diabetes. As stated above, this is because the current system wastes more than 1/3 of all healthcare spending on non-healthcare related costs. To paraphrase Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for other countries the problem is money, for the U.S. it is the system.

Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the current private system is already effectively rationing access to healthcare. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. is 33%, significantly lower than other single payers like the U.K. at 41%, Australia at 54%, and New Zealand at 60%. Poll after poll reports many Americans admitting to going without needed care because of out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. Moreover, 46 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are considered underinsured.

3.) H.R. 676 is socialized medicine:

This is false. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means that the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers (physicians, nurses etc.) who remain private. So, under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare provider. There is no out-of-network.

4.) I wouldn’t want my benefits to drop and also, I wouldn’t want to change physicians:

Under H.R. 676 the large majority of Americans’ benefits would dramatically increase. This is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision, and mental health services.

You will not have to change physicians unless you choose to. You have free choice of provider. Further, when changing jobs or place of employment, under the current private system people often must change physicians or even go without coverage temporarily. However, under H.R. 676 coverage is not affected and patients can continue to see the same physician.

5.) Isn’t government control of our healthcare system going to lead to a much less efficient and more bureaucratic operation:

No. In fact, the current private system is much more bureaucratic and much less efficient. Not only does the current system waste 1/3 of all spending, but it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, making doctors justify every test and procedure-while attempting to influence these decisions through financial penalties and incentives. Physicians have to hire administrators just to keep up with the excess of claims and administration. Insurance companies also invest in drug companies, so when covering medications they have corporate duty to cover these medications even if others are cheaper and/or more effective. When further considering the confusing mass of bills, E.O.B.’s, deductibles, co-pays and the up, down and in the middle communication of physicians to insurance companies, insurance companies back to physicians and then the patient’s to both, the current private system is one impressively bureaucratic system, indeed.

H.R. 676 eliminates the administrative waste, patient billing, co-pays and deductibles, by funding the system directly through tax dollars. Further, H.R. 676 leaves the medical decisions to the physicians themselves, reviewing their performance regularly instead of directly interfering with the patient-physician relationship.

6.) Isn’t the market based competition of the current private based system the best way to control costs:

Obviously not, since the costs of premiums rose 86% between 2000 and 2006; three times faster than inflation. The rise of income in the same period rose only 15%. Medical bankruptcies are up 2200% since 1981 and profits for the largest pharmaceutical companies hit $62 billion back in 2004.

H.R. 676 addresses cost control immediately by cutting out the profit and wasteful administration of the private system. Further, by being the sole insurer, the government will have the necessary influence to negotiate fair drug prices. Finally, the promotion of preventative medicine, which is virtually non-existent in the private based system, will control costs in the long term by reducing chronic diseases that require expensive treatment, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

7.) Isn’t the reason that healthcare costs keep rising is that we are unhealthy as a country:

Yes and no. First, through there are many factors to rising costs in healthcare, one important reason is poor health; with the consequent cost of treating chronic diseases. But, it is here again that the private system fails us. As a for-profit industry, there is no incentive to promote preventative medicine, the cost of such programs being immediate and the long-term financial dividends uncertain; uncertain because clients often switch coverage and companies. The fact is, not only do the private insurance companies rarely promote preventative medicine, they actually invest in industries that cause chronic illnesses. For instance, an insurer may invest in the tobacco industry.

However, the “no” is that there are other important factors in the rapid rise of healthcare costs, not the least of which are corporate profit, poor administration, and the outrageous cost of medication.

8.) I’ve read that trial lawyers and malpractice suits are driving up healthcare costs:

Yes and no. These do drive up costs, but only fractionally compared to the factors mentioned above, accounting for only 0.46% of our total healthcare spending. This is not the real problem.

9.) There seems to be a lot of factors involved in the high costs of healthcare. Can’t we just make reforms to the current system instead of changing over to another system:

This is the critical point: no matter what reforms take place, keeping the for-profit, private insurance healthcare system requires wasting billions of dollars on non-healthcare costs. This system exists first and foremost to make money, not provide care. In fact, as a business it is in their best interest not to pay on claims, to deny claims whenever possible. As for-profit companies, they must use money to market themselves to prospective clients, they must hire administrators and marketers to do the job, and this is factored in to every premium dollar. As for-profit companies they must profile clients and underwrite them, they must promote medications based upon money instead of efficacy. And they must generate billions in profit; billons which don’t go towards healthcare.

Consider further that as for-profit companies they have a vested interest in not insuring the elderly or the sick because they are too “expensive”, that they pass off the chronically ill to government programs in the long run anyway. And consider their inability to control pharmaceutical prices. With these considerations, as well as those of above, it becomes evident that reform is not really an option. For, it is the for-profit system that is the problem.

According to public, campaign finacning regulations tommorow, November 29th, is the last day to receive matching funds through public financing.

So if you make a contribution tonight or tommorow to Dennis Kucinich, this means that your $50 contribution becomes a $100 contribution, $200 equals $400 … up to $250.  

From the Kucinich campaign:

There are literally just weeks left before the primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. We are proud of how far we’ve come, and the way the American people have embraced our message of “Strength through Peace.” According to recent polls we are in 4th place in New Hampshire. You could help put us over the top in New Hampshire by making a contribution today, and Double Your Impact, by taking advantage of the federal matching funds program.

Your support is essential as you can help us:

* Run advertisements and media

* Hire field coordinators and staff

* Provide housing for volunteers willing to come to New Hampshire to help get Dennis’ message out.

* Have all the resources we need to compete in New Hampshire and other early primary states

You know our campaign does not take contributions from corporations or from special interest groups. We have relied on people like you to help support our campaign. You have always come through during our end of quarter drives.

This is such an important opportunity for us and we cannot let it go by. Kucinich has disporpotiantely been supported by small donors and so the fact of doubling our contribution is something that we simply need to take advantage of. Even a small donation now becomes more significant. If you have already donated, I sincerely thank you. But, if you can make the extra committment for Mr. Kucinich’s leadership, it will go twice as far until tommorow.

Let us not forget what Kucinich’s leadership has been:

The only Democratic Candidate to oppose the War and the subsequent Occupation

The only Democratic Candidate to show the judgement and Constitutional integrity to vote against the Patriot Act

One of only six House members to vote against the Homegrow Terrorism Act

The only Democratic Candidate who is taking the threats to our Democracy seriously and actually holding this Administration accountable through Impeachment

The only Presidential Candidate offering a truly universal, not-for-profit health care system

The only Democratic Candidate who will cancel U.S. involvement in job killing, deficit building, human expoliting, environmental raping trade agreements, NAFTA/WTO

Really it goes on. We have seen this leadership. Kucinich has been the heart and soul of this party; the only Democrat willing to stand up for the party’s principles, rather than play party politics; the only one willing to put the Constitution and all Americans ahead of politics.

We need to support Dennis because he is speaking for us. And we need to support him now before it is too late. Please follow this link and make your contribution now.

Thank you for your support!

The DFA Presidential Pulse Poll ends tonight at Midnight Eastern/9:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, which only gives us a few hours to cast our votes. So far, over 130,000 votes have been cast, making it the largest presidential poll of progressive activists this year. I am genuinely proud to write that Dennis Kucinich currently leads with over 30% of the vote.

However, as positive as a Kucinich victory is, simply finishing first is less important than our sending a clear message to America that, as Progressives, we have made a committment to pushing progressive values into the mainstream and elevating the voices that best represent those values. We must push Dennis Kucinich higher, we must cast our votes, for we know that he is the candidate that best represents these values. He proves it to us through his platform, at each debate, in every speech, and vote after vote in Congress.

Who is the only Democratic presidential candidate who campaigned against and voted against the war authorization resolution in 2002 and every supplemental appropriation since? Who is the only Democratic presidential candidate to vote against the unconstitutional and illegal U.S.A Patriot Act?

Who is the only candidate to come to terms with the Occupation of Iraq and speak out about the unjust privatization of Iraq’s national oil wealth?

Who is the only candidate to provide leadership and consistently speak out against agressive military action in Iran? Who is the only candidate willing to stand up to this Administration and its abuses by pursuing Impeachment?

Who is the only only Presidential candidate willing to challenge the private insurance and pharmaceuitcal companies with a truly universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care system to cover all Americans?

Who is the only candidate willing to address the causes of our massive trade deficit, millions of outsourced jobs, worker and human rights abuses, and environmental abuses? What other candidate is willing to look at these problems and take the action that needs to be done: withdrawing the U.S. from NAFTA/WTO?

Who is the only candidate to offer true equal rights to all Americans, supporting full marriage equality?

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate willing to take a clear stand for progressive values and he is pushing this whole party through his leadership. It is Dennis Kucinich that opened the dialogue on the U.S. presence in Iraq that other candidates have moved to. It is Dennis Kucinich that introduced the power of the purse and Congress’ ability to end the war now, which we have heard other candidates begin to consider. It is Dennis Kucinich that first talked about diarmament and cutting the Pentagon budget, putting the money into domestic needs like education and infrastructure. Now other candidates are talking about the same things.

Dennis Kucinich is the candidate that is making our voices heard. Now it is up to us to make that voice stronger and more resonant. Please support the progressive candidate and cast your vote for Dennis Kucinich in the DFA poll here. 

Thank you.

The latest Rasmussen poll in New Hampshire shows Dennis Kucinich in fourth place, tied with Bill Richardson at 7%. This shouldn’t come as such a surprise, however.

First, Kucinich has already been tied with Richardson in various national polls, such as Rasmussen, Fox, Diego/Hotline. It’s really been the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire that Kucinich has been significantly behind in the polls, a result of the intense money being spent in those states. 

But, second, and more significantly, the Kucinich Campaign has been actively working with leadership in the Independent voting community. Jim Mangia, head of Independent Voice, who has been instrumental in introducing Kucinich to other Independents working to reform the political process; meetings with leaders in the national movement like Linda Curtis, director of Independent Texans, and Jacqueline Salit, executive editor of The Neo-Independent magazine and president of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, which:

mounts political, legal, legislative and organizing challenges to partisan control of the political process. It has pioneered methods of organizing independents without a political party, creating independent voter associations to project the voice of the 35% of the electorate that considers itself independent.

As I posted before, two weeks ago, Kucinich met with and addressed a few hundred Independents in New Hampshire, at a conference sponsored by the New Hampshire Association of Independent Voters, where he received an overwhelmingly positive response. To cheers and rounds of applause he stated:

“The Democrats have learned nothing since 2006,” he said. “Back then, the Democrats promised that if they were put back in control (of the House and Senate) that the war in Iraq would end. Now (estimates) predict there won’t be an end until at least 2013.”

“I want a Democratic party that’s responsive to the needs of all Americans . . . (politicians) shouldn’t be called upon to be loyal to one political party, we’re elected to be loyal to something with much more power – the Constitution.”

As Independents are largely a growing number of dissafected Republicans and Democrats seeking genuine political reform, ending the domination of special interests groups in the political process, and positioning themselves aggressively against this war/occupation, Kucinich is the Democrat who can best mobilize these votes in the primary and general election.

Independent voters, who now make up between 35%-42% of the electorate, have nearly grown into the majority in New Hampshire. As Jacqueline Salit noted at the conference:

registered independents in New Hampshire, for instance, have increased from about 28 percent of total voters several years ago to roughly 45 percent today…

“Why are so many (voters) becoming independents?” Salit asked. “Because by declaring ourselves independents, we’re saying we don’t like what the political parties are doing to our country.

These are the voters who are willing to take a stand. These are the voters who will not be told who is or is not electable. These are the voters that could well decide this election, and could well decide it for Kucinich.

Electability is not a fixed characteristic of a candidate, it doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. It’s easy to dismiss a candidate polling at 2-3% as unelectable. All one does is point to the polls to effectively undermine any other argument. This, further, provides the media with an excuse to not cover voices like Kucinich, creating a viscious cycle that virtually ensures the polling to remain low.

And this has been Kucinich’s major obstacle. It is the first 10-15% that is critical. Once you get there the myth of electability is no longer tenable, forcing more media coverage, exposing more voters, pushing the polls still higher, and opening the door for every Democrat who has ever said, “I like Dennis Kucinich, but…”

So, get ready, America. At 7% we’re half way there in New Hampshire!