At least as far as the counting goes.  However, the graphs are not showing, and instead there is a broken picture titled "pies need gd2 extension".

I justed posted a diary with three different polls with wide ranging candidate choices (around 20), and an IRV poll for the general election.

Here is the LINK.

Thanks for visiting the diary and voting!
NL

I had the same problem. Feingold was my seventh choice and apparently my vote went to him. There is no way I can regard this as a legitmate poll.

the IRV polls are weird, IMO.  last time around i voted a bit later, and i ranked russ #1 and clark #2, but it counted for clark.  i did the same thing this time around but was early enough that it counted for russ.

i think a lot of this depends on how fast people get to the polls.

Does anyone actually think that Wes Clark has a real chance of winning the nomination?  I mean just seems to me that he is a great guy but his campaign never really got off the gound.  I can not see a roadmap fo him.  I would be interested in other thoughts.

Feingold may eventually overtake Clark among the netroots, but I think Warner's lack of serious foreign policy bona fides will hurt him tremendously down the road.  People still are relatively unfamiliar with a majority of Warner's positions, especially on the Iraq War (they are starting to surface), which, for many, is a litmus test of sorts.

strategic voting that plagues plurality, but in the case of IRV it happens when there are 3 or more major candidates with about the same support.

Condorcet works better as a ranked voting system.

We would be fools to pass him up in '08.  With that said, we'll probably nominate Hillary or someone else with little to no chance of winning the general election.

Ya know, it's too bad that Jerry Kilgore (the failed GOP gov candidate for those unfamiliar with VA politics) didn't run for prez instead of Bush in 2000. Then we would have had the Kilgore v. Gore instead of Bush v. Gore. No wait, we would have had president Gore and wouldn't have had to deal with the nightmare of 8 years of Bush.

nope, Feingold's now beating him about 59-41.

I made up my mind the day after Kerry lost too, and that was before I discovered blogs. Before I discovered the blogosphere, I thought I was the only Feingold supporter out there. It's good to know I am not alone.

Because probably when you voted, as when I voted, Mark Warner beat Wesley Clark in the 3-way battle between Warner, Clark, and Feingold (Warner won by a vote for me). For me it broke 59-41 Feingold.

I just checked it and it showed Wesley Clark beating Warner on the 2nd to last round, but losing to Feingold 53-47. This is clearly good news for Feingold, as Clark's votes disproportionally favor Feingold over Warner. Warner's votes also split about 50-50 to Clark/Feingold, which is good news for him too.

It is working improperly, but not for this reason. It's working improperly because I can vote an unlimited number of times and have all my votes counted. So if I were so inclined, I could force the outcome to one particular candidate (in my case, Warner). Not that I would be a jerk like that, but you obviously can't take this as an accurate pulse of the Democratic party or even of the liberal blogosphere.

If you voted early on, then this could have easily happened even if the IRV was working correctly, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, as more votes came in, the results changed, and now that Clark is coming in second, your first place vote for Clark will have been counted for Clark instead of Feingold, so there's nothing fishy going on.  

Ah, the poll is only a few hours old.  

The first comment on the poll was posted at 1:52 EDT today (see below).  Maybe the first poster was somewhat behind the initial posting of the poll, but I suspect not by more than an hour.

(Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 at 01:52:39 PM EDT ).

It's not over yet, voting is continuing.

 

The hardcore Greens won't support LaDuke because she endorsed Kerry in 2004. Gonzales could give  Pelosi a serious run for her House seat in that district if Greens would be willing to focus their gunfire on that race. Furthermore, I think there are many Democrats who wouldn't mind the switch given the fact that Gonzales would caucus with them anyway.    

I'm hoping Ken Sain's poll puts an end to Rotzler's potential candidacy. I don't have anything against her but she's clearly not qualified to be a presidential candidate. My resume would stack up to hers and that's setting the bar real low. Given that she can't even win Ken Sain's straw poll amongst Greens, it's my sincere hope that the portion of the party's leadership which is determined to field a female candidate in 2008 will at least begin the process of looking elsewhere.  

Personally, as a Green, I strongly believe if the party can't field a candidate with a reasonable expectation of garnering 5% in the general election, they'd be much better off passing and throwing the party's weight behind Feingold early in the Democratic primary process. Green money and support would be better spent concentrating on local races where we can win. Spending a few hundred thousand dollars on a candidate who won't even get half of one percent of the popular vote is throwing away more good money after bad.  

I dunno, I have heard Bayh and Vilsack speak. Forgetaboutit.

Warner? Maybe- I haven't heard him.

are you using to argue that Feingold has no chance?  Conjecture?  The blanket senator argument?

Any one who thinks or thought John Kerry was electable is either brain dead or is on drugs.

Kerry is reality is a liberal Democratic US Senator from a solid Blue State.
The only asset he had was national security issue. Wesley Clark was an unknown quantity- he did not held any elected office.
Other 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates.
Dean- would not have received more than 45% of the popular vote.
Edwards- lightwieght- one term US Senator, lacked foriegn policy national security experience.
Gephardt- safe pick ie Kerry(from a Midwest,strong labor support.

Ben you have a damn good point. Unfortunately, there are still people who listen to pundits in DC on who is electable.  These pundits have demonstrated only one thing consistently--they are full of shit and don't know what theyre talking about.

Like Gore, he is not likable, and unlike Gore he is from the wrong state and married to the wrong woman.

very convincing arguement.

snark

-He has strong netroots support.
-He has an active website and PAC, and has made appearances in support of several candidates, including Kaine in Virginia, Hackett in Ohio, and others.
-He participated in Clinton's recent conference, and has become active in fighting global warming
-He is a contracted commentator and appears regularly as THE token voice of reason (unless for some reason you would want to include Susan Estrich and Alan colmes) on Fox News
-He has been actively sought by Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats to participate in foreign policy and security initiatives  

regarding Howard Dean: HE'S STATED HE IS NOT RUNNING. Though he should have been on the fantasy poll. If you want a non-DLC candidate, vote for Feingold, Clark, or gasp Joe Biden(who's technically not part of it).

well then your #1 Choice should be Russ Feingold.

With Wesley Clark as #2 (because he did not actually cast a vote for it, nor does he not necessarily support a timetable for withdrawal).

Russ has been extremely consistant on Iraq, and don't get him confused with corporatist and hawk Feinstein, this guy is no foolsgold!. Give him a good look