Who Benefits From a Crowded Field?

[DrFunkenstein]

Mario Cuomo has said that Gore must enter the race because nothing is emerging but "babble." Is this the result of lackluster candidates or an inevitable fact of a crowded field in the early stages of the race?

If candidates are only given a minute to describe their positions alongside 8 other positions, and no chance to interact with the others, is it surprising that people have yet to make up their minds?

My question is perhaps one of style, but there are obviously other factors to consider. Which candidates benefit from this "babble" of short talking points and limited interaction? Which are harmed by this state of affairs?

A side matter to consider - there are certain candidates that clearly are not going to win the Party's nomination. Should they remain to keep their voices heard, or promote themselves as a potential VP? More importantly should the powers that be actively silence these candidates, and do they have the power to do so?

Food for thought. Let me know what you think.

[MasonJar]

1. A crowd

It seems to me that if the candidates would keep to pointing out Bush's daily lies and errors and stop attacking each other, the dems would benefit from a crowded field. I know they all want to win, but the big game is Bush. I like the way Bob Graham keeps pulling new evidence out of the hat. If Clark and Biden and Gore enter, then some are going to have to exit. I like a lot about most of them well, except Lieberman) (oh, if Gore had only chosen Graham to run with him.)

[janx]

2. The crowd will thin as time goes by.

I have enjoyed hearing from all nine of them so far though. It has been interesting and thought-provoking. Until now, I haven't spent so much time looking at the primary process.

[LWolf]

3. Good question.

I'm having to step back and ponder.

On one hand, I think it's good to have a lot of voices in the mix, and a broad choice. But I also think it would be good to narrow it down before election day comes.

I don't want to do that too soon; too early and it cuts legitimate contenders out of the picture. Let's give them another couple of months.

Lackluster...well, to be perfectly honest, I find all of the more mainstream candidates lackluster. Maybe that's why we keep hearing about more possible contenders. I don't need any more unless some drop out of the mix.

That's the problem. I'd like to see some of them drop out, but not for the same reasons as others. Lieberman, Graham, and Gephardt...they could all go. I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't agree, though, and there it is. Whose candidate has to give up?

It's the "certain" people who "don't have a chance." They add important ideas to the process. Do the powers that be have a right to silence them? Absolutely not!!! If we support the democratic process, we support having full access to whatever we need to help us make an informed decision, and that includes hearing what ALL the candidates have to say. Whether they do or not, they should NOT have the power or the right to silence anyone.

I don't want my candidate to drop out! I think he's been unfairly marginalized, and I think he has just as good a chance as any other. I want him in there fighting until the end. If nothing else, he can raise the level of honesty.

Who benefits from quick little soundbites? The candidates who have the least to offer. They don't have to back up their positions with any depth. That's why I think it could be narrowed down before the end. But it should be the candidates themselves that make that decision; no marginalizing or pushing people out.

Food for thought, indeed. Clear as mud, huh?

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Clear As Mud?

I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting, although I think I get the tone. But I phrased this as an open question, and phrases like "actively silence" were meant to convey my mixed feelings on the subject.

My main concern with the side issue is how long the candidates keep showing up. What mechanisms are there to narrow the field? I honestly don't know and was asking.

As for the main issue, my feelings are that certain styles are favored by the sound bite - Sharpton's for example - and others are at a disadvantage. But given the nature of the contest, I would think that a skilled politician could use this crowded format to their advantage.