Democratic senators want candidates to take Swalwell's hint and drop out

[brooklynite]

The Hill

Senate Democrats hope Rep. Eric Swalwell’s (D-Calif.) decision to drop out of the crowded presidential field is a sign of things to come.

The anxiety in the Senate about the crowded race mimics the nervousness of Democratic voters who worry their party will blow a second presidential contest against President Trump and who see the 25-candidate race as a hindrance.

Democratic senators also see a potential silver lining to a narrowing field: They are holding out hope that candidates like Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) could still run for the Senate.

“I’d like to get the debate into a one-night event. Right now, with 25 or whatever the number is, that’s hard to do,” said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).

[Farmer-Rick]

1. I have no anxiety over the large field

I don't see it as a hindrance against Traitor Trump.

Just the opposite. The more the merrier. You never know who the next Obama might be.

I think this writer is pushing a meme that is not a concern for most Democrats and liberals. I think the writer is trying to create anxiety where there isn't any.

Thanks for posting this it tells me we are getting under someone's skin and it is not Democrats.

[genxlib]

4. I disagree

It is a concern for me and I think many people agree.

There is some truth to the fact that you never know who the next Obama might be. However, at this time, we certainly know who isn't the next Obama for a whole bunch of these candidates.

[Farmer-Rick]

5. True about we know who the next Obama is Not

But what's the harm? We aren't voting until November 2020. There's plenty of time. Many countries limit campaining to less than a year. We should take our time, consider everyone and go from there.

We need to hear all these voices to decide who our next president will be. I think unlike the GOP, we liberals and democrats are more likely to make decisions based on facts then on emotions. That requires some amount of thought, time and an open field of possibilities.

[genxlib]

10. I can think of a whole bunch of disadvantages

For starters
- Wasted funds that could be better spent.
- Desperate candidates attacking and weakening serious candidates
- Missing candidates in other important Senate races
- Too much noise to really focus on the quality candidates
- Too little scree time in debates to have a nuanced discussion
- Weakening of the pool of quality staffers available for good candidates

That's just for starters.

I think we need to be in single digits by the Fall or we will have a disaster on our hands. It feels like trying to govern by committee and is not helping.

Bear in mind that this forum is comprised of a bunch of inside baseball political junkies. It might be fun for us to get to know 25 people and watch them duke it out. For the typical primary voter, this is a confusing mess.

[Farmer-Rick]

11. A lot of those disadvantages are true because of the long campaign season we allow anyway.

And because most Democrats do not allow Russia to run and fund their campaigns. And without a corrupt foreign power funding your party, and clearly providing staff too, you are at a distinct disadvantage.

The only way we beat their cheat machine is to overwhelm them with votes. That's how Obama did it. That's how we won back the House. And if one of those many voices interests just one voter, we are getting there. Shutting down the many voices may actually shut down some voters we can't afford to spare. Having a party with so many ideas is very attractive to younger voters who are use to a lot of ideas all at once. (I think the Russians know that and it is why they are pushing a "be afraid" meme among Dems.)

Some of those issues are just built in flaws like the debates, that are more like mini speeches on different topics. Those issues will be there if you have 50 candidates or 2.

But I understand your concern. This process is chaotic and all over the map. It's poorly organised and at times wasteful. I think in the end it will all settle out after a rush. In the mean time I and a few others find this very invigorating.

[Demsrule86]

8. We need good candidates for the Senate...or it will be for nothing..we can stop Trump with

the presidency but no judges and policy. I don't know why Warren is running with a GOP governor who will appoint her successor that alone is reason not to vote for her in a primary. You need more than the presidency to get stuff done...although I will settle for Trump being gone at this point. Lower tier candidates should drop out ...I hope Biden wins clearly and everyone else is gone sooner rather than later so we can begin the general.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Did they see the ratings for the first 2 debates ? Having all these candidates seems to have peaked

peoples' interest (and yes I think peaked is a better word than piqued here).

[Funtatlaguy]

3. I'm fine with them staying in until the September debates.

After that, if they aren’t polling above 2.5%, get out and run for Senate or something else.

[padah513]

6. While I commend them all for making a run for President

I'd love to see some of them run for Senate. If we could take the Senate we could put an end to this nightmare starting January 21st, 2021 or whatever day the inauguration takes place. And then let the real investigations begin.

[Funtatlaguy]

7. Yes. Taking back the Senate is crucial.

[Lotusflower70]

9. I hope some do

It's time to thin the herd and focus on the best of the best. There are some Senate seats that need some emphasis. And some of the lower candidates are absolutely ridiculous, it's obvious that there are some there to promote their self interests when they know that they have no chance to win.

[Uncle Joe]

12. I would like to see the debates extended from 2 to 3 hours each night.

The candidates would have more time to spell out their positions on the issues before the people and have debate among themselves.

Thanks for the thread brooklynite.

[Funtatlaguy]

13. I agree.

And, they should go down the line and allow each person an opening statement of thirty seconds to introduce themselves.