Why don't the Dem Candidates without significant support withdraw?

[NaMeaHou]

This is not a bashing thread in any way.

I simply believe that Graham had the right idea. By this time in the game, wouldn't it serve the party better to narrow the field of candidates?

More financing would be available for those left.
It would allow supporters of those departing to have time to narrow their choice regarding the remaining candidates.
It would cause greater cohesion and strength in the party going into the general election since supporters of other candidates that do not make the cut in the early primaries would have time to lick their wounds and come together without resentment or disappointment.

I believe Kucinich is a great candidate for president, but he will not win the nomination. He has failed to garner more than 1 or 2% of the support of party members after many months of campaigning. The same holds true for Sharpton, Mosely-Braun and Edwards. I admire each of these candidates, but feel it is time to look at reality and the difficult task ahead next year.

Many debates have been held, and the percentages aren't changing.

Wouldn't it strengthen the party to reduce the field?

[pruner]

1. I agree for the most part

but I wouldn't lump Edwards in with Sharpton, Kucinich & Moseley-Braun.

he's polling quite well in the South.

[mlawson]

2. Bill Clinton was THIRD behind Poppy and Perot in June 1992!

And see what happened. It's far too early to press any candidate to drop out. We haven't even had a primary yet!!

Exactly how would it strengthen the party if the field were narrowed???

[einsteins stein]

5. The original post answered your question:

>MLawson:
>Exactly how would it strengthen the party if the field were >narrowed???
>
>
>NaMeaHou:
>More financing would be available for those left.
>It would allow supporters of those departing to have time to narrow >their choice regarding the remaining candidates.
>It would cause greater cohesion and strength in the party going into >the general election since supporters of other candidates that do >not make the cut in the early primaries would have time to >lick .their wounds and come together without resentment or >disappointment

[mlawson]

10. I suspect the DNC already knows which one it will finance,

with the soft money. I doubt there will be any shortage of funds.

Every time one of our people drops out, the media whores will swear it was because 'his message was flawed', or other BS designed by the repukes to make it look like the candidate's message was wrong. Especially if DK were to drop out.

[NaMeaHou]

6. The limited amount of funds available would be there to promote

fewer candidates - therefore more money per candidate to get the message across. Less fracturing. Instead of 9 potentials to choose from, maybe 3 or 4 with supporters getting out the message. More probability of pulling together a coherent strategy for '04.

Just my thoughts.

Bush is currently the emperor watching 8 little princes and 1 princess cut each other up.

When the Repubs are out of power, do they have a baseball team sized number of candidates seeking the office?

[foo_bar]

8. that's not fair

I know Dean's a little spoiled but I wouldn't call him a "princess".

[Ediacara]

3. They're in it for the ideals

Kucinich, Sharpton, and to a lesser extent Mosely Braun are in it to bring their idealogy to the platform, not because they think they can win. Dean, Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards all believe in their heart of hearts that they can REALLY win the nomination.

ON EDIT: I should add that Graham was not in it for idealogy, he was in it to win. He saw that wasn't going to happen and cut his losses.

[Padraig18]

4. My reason for not wanting anyone to drop out:

The more angry voices raised against the crypto-fascists, the better! :thumbsup:

[lovedems]

9. Yes! The more minds thinking of ways to criticize Bushco. the better

[jrthin]

7. Because that's what dems do best---form a circle and

shoot.

[tjdee]

11. Uh, Edwards is NUMBER ONE in South Carolina...

in fact, his lead has widened a bit. His numbers are rising in other places--he's now fourth in Iowa, above Clark I believe. And, I'm sure he's doing internal polling that lets him know where he is in the other 48 states. He's also sitting on a lot of money, unlike the people he's always lumped with at DU.

And, you do realize you'd be leaving Lieberman in, when IMO he's wasting our time much more than the 'minor' candidates.

[NaMeaHou]

12. I like what I've heard from Edwards

He's intelligent and seems empathetic towards the average voters needs. Maybe the names should be changed - my intent is not to single out any particular candidate, but get some thought out there regarding the number of candidates at this stage of the game and is it healthy for the party at this point?

[tjdee]

13. I can agree with you on that.

I too agree that we need to prune the field.

Even though I support Edwards, I don't even think he should be running. IMO, Gore, Dean, Gephardt, and maybe Kerry and Clark (*maybe*) should be the only ones there. I'm not thrilled with the field, but I've heard many people who've been paying attention longer say that it's a strong bunch we've got. Anyway.

However, there is no way to democratically cut it down. Everyone has a major ego, and will hold on till the bitter end (or till the money's gone). I have a lot of respect for Graham to see the writing on the wall and deal with reality. I pick on Lieberman a lot here because he's getting BOOED repeatedly at these things, and he still can't catch a clue.

[MODemocrat]

14. I believe that narrowing the field would be better in some ways

All of the candidates feel that they have a legitimate reason for staying in the race. The way things are going in this country, almost anything could happen. :think:

[LoZoccolo]

15. It might be about endorsement.

It seems like each one of the candidates has something that sets them apart from the others, so at this point they may be trying to get their issues in front of the leaders of the pack to see which ones latch on, and then give an endorsement.