Dropping Out - For The Party - Here's Why

[JasonBerry]

I have read many threads with posts saying the same thing: "Why would it be best for the party for anyone to drop out? The more voices the better!"....

Here's why it is best for the party -

John Kerry, having opted out of matching funds, is sitting on money that can be spent AGAINST BUSH. The longer candidates with little or no chance of winning stay in - the more Kerry is forced to spend money in the primaries.

That - in a nutshell - is why dropping out now would be in the best interest of the party---and a Bush defeat.

[Walt Starr]

1. I can see the point

Unstoppable is about where we are.

[lancdem]

2. Food for thought

[girl gone mad]

3. That's making an assumption..

that the money being spent in the Primaries won't help our nominee in the GE.

I think that's a false assumption. The money being spent now is helping tremendously. Look at the damage being done to Bush. Look at the rise of our candidates in the polls. Look at the magazine covers and front page stories on our candidates, getting the word out, improving name recognition. Money spent in the Primaries is not money wasted. Bush wouldn't have had to go on MTP or be answering AWOL questions if it hadn't been for our candidates chipping away at his record.

You can't buy the kind of publicity these guys have been getting.

[JasonBerry]

6. Up to a point, yes

You are correct in everything you say - up to a point. I think a lot of people are thinking that point is - now. Keeping the presumptive nominee on the defensive for too long can be disastrous. How long is too long? When a candidate passes that magic point of being the presumptive nominee. We know we are there because John Kerry has money, momentum, and money, momentum. There's no conceivable scenario where another candidate can win the nomination. After tonight there is a percentage of delegates committed to Kerry that, along with the superdelegates, the nomination is as "presumptive" at this point than any contested nomination in modern history.

[girl gone mad]

11. Kerry..

hasn't really been on the defensive so far, Bush has.

Kerry will be much more on the defensive when it becomes a one-on-one with Bush and the RW really sets their sights on him. I think they've been holding back for now.

[HFishbine]

4. Dean opted out too

So I'm sure Kerry will recognize that dropping out now is in the best interest of the party.

[JasonBerry]

7. Except that

Dean has no money.

[Sushi-Lover]

16. Where did you get that info?

Also, if you have a source on the current funds of candidates, how much money does Kerry have right now? Somehow I hear an answer in my head of 'My expert sources tell me Dean has 0 $ and Kerry has a million billion'.

[Auntie Bush]

5. He can afford it! So stay in Wes.

If the media or the Fonda stuff destroys Kerry...there should be someone to pick up the pieces.

[JasonBerry]

8. In the event of disaster

In the event of a disaster, the convention can turn to anyone. A candidate need not stay in the contested primary race for insurance.

[lancdem]

9. The Fonda stuff?

Um, no.

[mmonk]

10. Nice but

I don't think sacrificing democracy is absolutely necessary. Kerry will pick up alot of dollars if he wins the nomination and it will be huge money.

[Nashyra]

12. This for Jason Berry

Are you saying that a candidate does not have to stay in the race to be eligible in the convention. so say kerry locks has 18oo delegates and the tide turns on him. Can Clark make a stand at the convention to be the candidate or Dean or Edwards?

[JasonBerry]

13. Superdelegates

Good question! One reason for the "Superdelegates" is to be uncommitted and allow for just such a scenario. The elected delegates to the convention - who ARE committed - could not make a majority without the SD - which account for 40% of all delegates. 715, I believe is the actual number. So, yes, any candidate could either A) Get back in the race or 2) Wait for the convention to turn their way.

[Sushi-Lover]

14. That doesn't make sense to me

unless all of the other candidates fall into the 'little or no chance of winning' category. When I asked this question, I did not assume Kerry would be the eventual nominee. You do and only in that light does your answer make some sense. If one does not believe that there is only one candidate that can win and all others have little or no chance of winning, then would a few 'low in the polls' candidates dropping out really save the eventual nominee enough $ to make a difference? Also, even if we assume Kerry is the eventual nominee, would having only one candidate from now to the convention really result in more media exposure of anti-bush message and more money in total being spent against Bush? In any case, thanks for addressing my question. I really did want answers with reasons why candidates should drop out, although I disagree with your reasoning.

[Rowdyboy]

15. After Super Tuesday is done and the results are clear, a nominee will be

evident. There are around 800 super-delegates left that can seal the deal for the front runner then. Kerry spent little in tonights races-doesn't have to-he has momentum.

Basically, the nominee will get a free ride by mid-March. Plenty of time to raise more money before the convention. Afterward, public financing ($54 million) kicks in.

[eridani]

17. The Republican slime machine--

--should not have a clearly defined target. Keep 'em guessing, sez I.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

18. So why is he spending all the money fighting against Dems?

Unless he needs to outspend them because he can't win on record, policies and message alone?

:shrug:

TWL