The Odds Against a Current Candidate Who Is Polling under 5% Are Very High

[MineralMan]

That's just how things are. We have, really, just four solid front-runners. They have kept their poll results up. It's unlikely that any of them are going to suddenly drop far in the polls.

So, why do people keep thinking their favorite, who is polling at 1, 2 or 5%, is going to suddenly rise into double digit territory? It makes no sense. We've had two debates, and the candidates' names are known widely. Those who are paying attention to the primary race at this point recognize all of those names.

It's not going to happen. Nobody is going to rise from the pack and somehow become prominent and leap up in poll rankings.

It's time, I think, for the herd to thin itself so we can begin to look at the leaders as they pick up support from those who were supporting minor candidates.

We could wait until next year, but there's little point at this stage. Let's have some of the minor candidates withdraw so we can have discussions that are realistic instead of talking about fantasy candidates.

Biden, Warren, Harris, and Sanders. It is 99% certain that one of those four will become our nominee. Lets shift the focus to the real race for that nomination. That's my suggestion, for whatever people think it's worth.

[bigtree]

1. I think calling for candidates to drop out on this forum is in bad taste, bad politics

...it tends to spill over to supporters who have as much right as anyone to continue to advocate for the candidate of their choice.

It shouldn't go unnoticed that your candidate of choice is safe from making that decision, so I have to wonder why you feel the need to press for others candidates to withdraw. It has a depressing effect, and it alienates people who are organizing under our Democratic banner, threatening to demoralize them.

Let these campaigns decide on their own when to let their supporters down. No one needs anyone to push them off of the stage at this point and it does nothing but aggravate folks here who are investing their hopes in this primary

Obviously calling for this here at DU does nothing to influence the candidates, and speaks directly to supporters here.

[MineralMan]

7. As always, it's my opinion.

On DU, opinions are the order of the day. I have one. You have one. They differ.

I have no influence on candidates, nor on their supporters. I expressed my opinion, and everyone else is free to do the same.

[bigtree]

10. you're not expressing that opinion in a vacuum

...it's an open room, and only supporters here.

but, of course, I respect your right to hold and express your tactical view. Like I said, much easier course to advocate when your guy has been leading in the polls since he announced.

[MarcA]

15. Agreed. Some people have the opinion that drump and putin

are great leaders. But after all it's just opinions.

[Thekaspervote]

30. Rude!

[MineralMan]

16. Well, I have nothing to do with how Joe Biden is doing.

Nobody has polled me so far in this campaign. As always, I will gladly vote for whomever becomes the nominee. I suppose my view is tactical, in the sense that I'm eager to see how the leaders do when the preferences of the people who now have a preference for someone who is not a leading candidate.

I'm also eager to see how each of the leading candidates chooses to take on Trump. My choice is based on who I would vote for today, if the election were held today. It's not set in stone.

Currently, I see having 23 or is it 24 candidates in this race as a serious distraction, even this early. I'd like to see that change, but it's up to each of the candidates who is not doing very well to decide whether to continue or withdraw and find something else to do. Minnesota's favorite daughter can continue to be our senior Senator, of course, which I'm sure she is planning to do. Other candidates have other directions.

Really, my goal at this point is to narrow the focus and target Trump, rather than other Democrats.

[bigtree]

21. people are still advocating for the issues, interests and concerns they want candidates to represent

...into the election.

Candidates and supporters alike will want to make certain those don't fall by the wayside if they step aside. There are honest differences between candidates, and many of those will find folks waiting for the actual ballot to determine their fate.

I think candidate outreach to these campaigns and supporters should precede the hook.

[DownriverDem]

20. Depends on view of politics

We know we are going no where without the Senate. Some of the candidates would better help by running for the Senate.

[bigtree]

22. Hickenlooper looks like a lock

...not sure about Texas and Beto.

Once burned, twice shy.

[R B Garr]

66. This also applies to Gabbard then. She is listed as a Democrat

in the Admin list for this forum. “only supporters here”

[bigtree]

71. she should continue her campaign

...into oblivion.

Biden/Gabbard 2020

[R B Garr]

74. Except I don't think Harris is running for VP, either. I've heard

Harris proclaim that she isn’t running for VP. Some would say it’s offensive to suggest that a woman is relegated to a VP slot.

Of course, Biden has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

[MineralMan]

84. Well, Harris would be foolish to say she was running for VP

at this point. And she's not foolish. She'd also be foolish not to accept a VP nomination, which I don't believe she would do. She's still a top choice for VP for me. And, likely for Biden.

It would be a wonderful ticket, I think.

[Joe941]

8. +1

Why are you in such a rush?

[gtar100]

56. Polls shouldn't decide elections.

Votes should.

Assuming they're counted.

Accurately.


I like that in primaries we can vote our conscience without having to worry about it electing the inevitable buffoon chosen by the republicans. Our ridiculous, tightly-controlled, two-party system has caused many of our "representatives" to be not so representative of the people. So while we got the chance, at least in the primaries, we ought to encourage debating the ideas and merits of each candidate, regardless of poll numbers. After the primaries, our choices will be quite stark.

[dalton99a]

2. What's the big hurry? Let them decide. Let the voters decide.

[calguy]

3. What you are suggesting will happen naturally, on its own

Might get a couple to drop, like Hickenlooper, who clearly saw the reality of his chances, but who also had a good plan B option, like a Senate run. Those who don't have a good plan B option will stay in as long as they can raise enough donation money to stay on the road. After Iowa when the donations dry up due to no voter support, we'll see several more drop out and after NH even more. The race will pretty much be defined after SC and we'll have our horse race. Gotta let this thing play out. It's the American way.

[EarnestPutz]

4. You may be right because there are just so many candidates this year. But I have to go back...

....to 1975 and Jimmy Carter's quixotic campaign at that time. He was in low single digits and the pundits weren't even talking about his prospects in Iowa, where Birch Bayh was presumed to be the potential breakthrough candidate. Some of the lesser lights, like the self help author, should pack it in. But others who really have no chance, like Mr. Yang, do bring something to the discussion. It's early and a field of four top candidates would limit the debate at this point. My opinion only.

[yardwork]

69. I remember that. I was in high school.

I remember it clearly because sometime during the 1975-76 school year my history class held mock debates, where we were assigned candidates to represent. I was assigned Jimmy Carter. I introduced myself by saying "I'm Jimmy Carter and I'm your next president" and the whole class laughed.

A year later he was elected president.

There was a very large field of Democratic candidates for the 1976 election, and the Republicans were reeling from Watergate. Nixon had resigned in disgrace and Jerry Ford was not up to the job. Reagan even tried to primary him.

With so much chaos in the Trump administration, a lot can change in a year.

[floppyboo]

5. It's summer! Lots of people are taking a break

Way to early to count any one out. Not everyone is retired and hanging out on sites like this. And heaven knows, we all deserve a break! Wait until at least October for peeps to get into that 'back to school' serious mode.
Maybe someone can explain to me the green bar at the bottom of this graph (I don't know how to copy pics) but isn't that showing a sharp drop in political engagement during summer months?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[tblue37]

6. Most voters, even primary voters, are still not paying that much attention--especially since it's

summer. Therefore name recognition is still driving the polls. Remember "Joementum"?

For example, the more people see if Warren, the more her support surges. The debate in September, with fewer candidates, will let people see more of the 4 or 5 second-tier candidates, and that might cause some of them to win more support (especially Beto, I think).

With too many candidates in the first two debates, the lesser known ones didn't get enough time to make a case for themselves. That could change in September and also as the campaigns move around the country.

I think the top six will remain the top six, but I also think Buttagieg and Beto might see their numbers improve.

[crazytown]

9. 'under 5%' ?

Well, that is not Pete. Buttigieg has not polled under 5% on the RCP average for than 3+ months. Kinda tough to tell the guy who raised the most money, last quarter, to drop out. On the other hand, Beto has not polled 5% or more for the same period but I would not like to lose the tall Texan's voice now.

[MineralMan]

17. Yes, under 5%. I chose that number deliberately.

[Garrett78]

11. The current size of the field is precisely why you might be wrong.

I do think the nominee will be Biden, Harris or Warren. But I also think another candidate (such as Buttigieg or Booker or Castro or O'Rourke) could possibly surge once the field is greatly reduced, depending on how close we get to Iowa before that happens.

Right now, there are far too many candidates for the average voter to bother with trying to distinguish between them. Name recognition continues to be the driving force. Most people aren't paying close attention at this point.

Yang, Gabbard, Steyer and most of the others not mentioned in this post really ought to exit. They aren't helping in terms of the electorate being able to make a selection. They just muddy the waters.

[bigtree]

12. right, but who will get those candidates' supporters?

...I'd assume, at least at this point, non-Biden folks are looking for something new.

[Garrett78]

23. The bottom dozen don't have enough supporters to make a difference, except in that...

...them dropping out will help people more easily distinguish between the rest.

But as for who Tim Ryan or Steve Bullock supporters will turn to, who cares.

[bigtree]

26. and will loosen funds

...freeing donors to support other candidates.

[Thekaspervote]

55. Here's a peek at how that may play out

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287237414

Morning Consult's polling of voters' 2nd choices indicates no one can catch Biden by other

candidates dropping out or fading, simply because he does better or almost as well as any other candidate when voters are asked who their second choice would be.

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/


Sanders supporters, when asked for their 2nd choice:
Biden 30%, Warren 27%, Harris 7%

Warren supporters, when asked for their 2nd choice:
Sanders 23%, Harris 20%, Biden 19%

Harris supporters, asked for their 2nd choice:
Warren 28%, Biden 23%, Sanders 12%

Buttigieg supporters, asked for their 2nd choice:
Warren 22%, Biden 20%, Harris 17%


So, if any of these candidates dropped out or drastically lost support, apparently Biden would pick up approximately as many of their supporters as his nearest rivals would.


And in case anyone's wondering about Biden supporters' 2nd choice:
Sanders 26%, Warren 19%, Harris 13%

[yardwork]

70. Gabbard's purpose is to cause trouble.

[R B Garr]

82. You could sort of say this about a couple other

low pollers also, which is kind of the point.

[karynnj]

13. It is early enough for those currently high to stumble aand one or more who are low to rise

That said, it is very likely the nominee will be one of the four leaders. You could look at pass years, but every field has its own dynamics. You could find a November 2003 poll, where Sharpton was ahead of Kerry. Looking at the four leaders, imagine for some reason that Biden has a reason that he either drops out or he completely stumbles - a very unlikely hypothesis. None of the other three are as centrist and as experienced as Biden. The question is who could rise to fill that slot? Khobichar ? Inslee? Or would that support go to whomever the new "frontrunner" labeled the most electable?

[Merlot]

14. The other candidates have a lot to offer to the conversation

I can think of about 5 who I'd be happy to see drop out, the rest are very engaging and bring publicity to democrats and their platform. No harm in that.

I want Inslee on the stage talking about climate. I want Yang talking about basic income. Booker has an enthusiasm no one can match, and Beto can talk about emigration with experience.

In 2016 we had the candidate pretty much decided for us. This time the democratic party is doing it right (for now).

[Chemisse]

65. Good point! "In 2016 we had the candidate pretty much decided for us."

I have been hoping the field would whittle down more quickly, but we should consider ourselves lucky to have such a large, diverse group of candidates from which to choose.

[jcgoldie]

18. 99% certain... under 5%...

Seems like you are just making up numbers to support an opinion... or is there some mathematical significance or scientific evidence you did not share?

[MineralMan]

19. It's completely my opinion.

It's always my opinion in posts I make here. If you could see my signature line, which has not changed for a very long time, I state that clearly. Your opinion might differ from mine, and you're free to express it, of course.

[Skya Rhen]

24. I 100% agree with your opinion - makes a lot of sense.

[Thekaspervote]

57. Thank you mineral man.. if everyone would point out that what they are post is there opinion

It would generate more actual discourse rather than discord. There’s such an authoritarian attitude by many backed up with ......nothing

[mtnsnake]

25. Surely you jest

Why should they drop out this incredibly early when they are still in the process of trying to build their name recognition?

The only reason most of the under 5%ers are where they are is because they lack the name recognition that Biden and some of the others have had right from the start. One of the main reasons why they won't drop out is because it takes so much time for them to get the name recognition they deserve.

Let's face it, the only reason Biden has been where he's at in the polls is because of name recognition from being Obama's VP. In the case of the below 5%ers, some of them might catapult themselves in the polls once they start getting more well known by the voters.

[MineralMan]

27. No, I don't jest.

I'm serious. With four people who already have name recognition at the top of the polling, it's going to be very difficult to rise in that field, I'm pretty sure. In fact, some of those I thought would do well have dropped a good deal.

It's simply too crowded a field of candidates for an unknown to make a move. It will be almost impossible to get media coverage pretty soon if you're not already in the leading group.

It's just too many people in the race.

[mtnsnake]

31. Thing is, none of our candidates are appearing to be THE magic bullet yet.

If they were, they'd be polling above 50%.

Nobody knows just yet who will be our best bet to become the best choice in 2020 because this early in the race, it's the polls themselves that have buried all the other candidates. Half the voters in this country don't even know 80% of the candidates yet, so those candidates need all this extra time to make themselves known. By next Spring, some of the ones who are low on the polls right now could rise like a rocket for all we know. At this point in time, can you say for sure that Joe Biden or Kamala Harris would be more likely to beat Trump than Amy Klobuchar for example? I don't think so. Can you say that they would make a better president than Klobuchar or Buttigieg? I don't think so.

[kurtcagle]

64. Hardly

By this time in 1991, there were eight Democratic candidates, with both Tsongas and Kerry considered front runners, and Bill Clinton was barely even considered a contender. The numbers looked a lot like they do today, with Kerry in the low 30s and Tsongas in the upper 20s. George H.W. Bush had an approval rating of 89%, and a lot of potential candidates sat out the election because they were sure he was going to win a second term.

Right now, everyone is jockeying for position, the media is trying to figure out what the narratives will end up being and for the most part, people are not really thinking about the Democratic primaries or the election overall. The next four months will be what defines most of the candidates. Howard Dean looked like he had a lot of momentum going into Iowa - four weeks later, he was out of the race

The field will winnow itself. It always does.

[Garrett78]

28. There's some truth in what you're saying, but...

...the size of the field prevents candidates from developing greater name recognition. See post #11. A good dozen or so candidates need to let go of ego and exit gracefully. A few are just novelty acts, while some others are merely looking to boost their public profile.

[mtnsnake]

33. "the size of the field prevents candidates from developing greater name recognition"

Yes, that is for certain, and that's why I think many of the lower polling candidates should not bow out until they get the proper amount of name recognition they deserve. IMO, the DNC is doing a lousy job of educating the voters on our candidates.

[Garrett78]

35. That's contradictory. They simply aren't going to develop greater name recognition...

...in a large field. The average voter, more than 5 months out from voting, isn't going to bother trying to distinguish between so many candidates. But cut the field in half and someone such as Booker could surge.

There's such a thing as too many candidates. And we have too many. Most could probably agree on half a dozen who should drop out. And there's another handful of candidates who I would argue also need to drop out. That we might once again not have all of the candidates on stage at the same time in September is absurd. Biden and Warren are yet to share a stage for cryin' out loud. 10 candidates is plenty at this juncture. 20+ is a muddy mess of a circus.

[MineralMan]

75. The DNC has little to do with the primary races.

[spooky3]

29. A quibble...

I think it’s possible, if not probable, that one of the leaders will have a screwup or something will happen to knock them down. That’s the nature of politics. I say this as a burned Edwards supporter.

I will be happy for time to prove me wrong.

[Persondem]

34. I disagree (with backup from 538). At this point in 1991 and 1975 both Clinton and Carter were

not well known and polling south of 5%. Both of them were well back in a busy field. Here a link to a 538 article that has some real numbers from primaries from '72 forwards.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-more-than-40-years-of-early-primary-polls-tell-us-about-2020-part-1/

Also, I really hate the lengthening of the campaign season ... Clinton didn't declare until Oct. '91 ... for candidates to drop out when the campaign really shouldn't have even have begun is ridiculous.

[qazplm135]

36. It's early still

We need to be down come say October, but right now, hardly anyone is paying attention anyways.

[Garrett78]

37. More people might pay attention if the field was smaller.

Right now, most aren't going to bother with trying to distinguish between 20 people they've never heard of.

[qazplm135]

39. No they wouldn't

It's still the summer. Come September folks will start to pay attention.

[Garrett78]

42. Many won't pay attention until next year and I'm not saying we'd see huge shifts...

...if the field were to be greatly reduced right now, but I do think there are some who are turned off by the size of the field. Some who might actually start paying attention sooner than otherwise were they able to distinguish between the candidates without having to expend so much mental energy.

Right now, more than half the field is comprised of novelty acts and members of Congress or governors trying to boost their public profile. We know they can't win, they know they can't win, and they're just muddying the water.

I don't fully agree with the OP. See post #11. The current size of the field is precisely why the OP might be wrong.

[qazplm135]

45. if this were 1991

The argument would be that Bill Clinton should drop out.

I just don't see a reason at this point after two debates and with so much time left.

I don't really care if people are all paying attention or not.

I care more if we get to October or November.

[Garrett78]

47. Apples and oranges. The field was considerably smaller.

In fact, the Clinton example is exactly what I'm getting at in post #11. If the current field was cut in half, the odds of an unexpected surge would greatly increase.

[qazplm135]

48. not really

just because there is a larger number doesn't mean that prohibits someone from breaking out.

You have no evidence for your second sentence.

Gabbard, Marianne, Ryan, and a few other folks we can all list wouldn't surge if the field were cut in half. They are never going to be the nominee. Not in this universe or any other universe in the multiverse except maybe Bizarro World.

Someone like Beto or Klobachur, or a couple of others, their surge could come regardless of the size of the field as they are more tied to a frontrunner falling out than anything else. Or they could catch fire in some way.

The other point is it's EARLY. Clinton was below 5 percent because at that time because it was way early. The only difference now is that we've started things way early.

Heck Clinton lost Iowa AND NH. So, it took him a long time to blow up. (He only won one of the first 12 caucuses or primaries--and he was second in only another 4 of them).

There's plenty of time. There's plenty of issues to discuss. There's no rush to cut down the field.

[Garrett78]

51. I didn't say it prohibits anything, but it does make it much less likely.

Because, again, your average voter isn't even going to begin to try and distinguish between 20 people they've never heard of. 6 or 7 and it's a whole different story. Biden benefits more than anyone from the field remaining large for a long time.

"Gabbard, Marianne, Ryan, and a few other folks we can all list wouldn't surge if the field were cut in half. They are never going to be the nominee. Not in this universe or any other universe in the multiverse except maybe Bizarro World."

Right. Same goes for at least a half dozen others. That's the point, though. Their being in the race helps to muddy the water in which the pool of candidates are swimming. A smaller group makes an unexpected surge much more likely.

Regarding 1992, Iowa was a given with Harkin in the race. And Tsongas was from New England. The surprise was that Clinton came in a fairly close 2nd in New Hampshire (it was essentially a Clinton win). That gave him viability in a small and rather weak field. Clinton won both Georgia and South Carolina in a landslide. The writing was on the wall. That set the stage for March 10, the day the race ended.

[bluewater]

38. Thank you for such a fact filled informative post.

It was a pleasant change from the post that declared the issue "99% certain" only to reveal down thread that was just an opinion.

[mtnsnake]

40. Well said and spot on. n/t

[qazplm135]

41. So how did Bill Clinton win then?

He was under five percent at this time in 1991.

[question everything]

43. Is it January already? could have fooled me

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287211811

[bigtree]

49. "See you in January"

...thanks for finding that post,

I asked him about this the other day and he denied he'd written anything like that. I thought he had bowed out of this forum.

"...when 2020 begins, I'll begin posting new threads in the Democratic Primaries forum again."

lol

No matter, glad we could help him sort things out.

[R B Garr]

67. That's not really an accurate description, though. nt

[Celerity]

50. +10000

[True Dough]

61. This is the danger for those who post frequently and attempt to be provocateurs

If you pay enough attention, you'll find contradictory posts, like you just did. It's been known to happen to OP more than once.

Oops!

[R B Garr]

77. which one is the provocateur? nt

[Bradshaw3]

44. History says this is wrong

From 1972 to 2008, three of the seven races for the Democratic presidential nomination in which there was not an incumbent Democratic president or vice-president running (as will be the case in 2020) were won by candidates who were at less than 5 percent in the early polls: McGovern, Carter and Bill Clinton. Even Dukakis in 1988 had just 7.5 percent in the early polling. Only Mondale in 1984 and Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 had substantial numbers in the early polling.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-more-than-40-years-of-early-primary-polls-tell-us-about-2020-part-1/

The road may be difficult but historical polling data shows a candidate at this point in the game with less than 5 percent still has a decent shot.

Edit: just saw that another poster had linked to this article. But I leave it in to show that facts for years between 1972 and 2000.

[jcgoldie]

73. Thank You

This is good information 15 months out. I think the OP is correct that there are some fringe candidates here and we could benefit by bringing the field more into focus especially once the next debates roll around. But I don't think you can take an arbitrary number like 5% and give it meaning in this regard.

[cwydro]

46. Rec.

[democratisphere]

52. True. Many need to seek other Democratic political opportunities.

Joe Biden will ultimately be our Presidential candidate and go on to challenge the rethuglicon candidate for President who will NOT be drumpf.

[Kurt V.]

53. lots of data out there from experts says buttigieg still is a serious possibility. so no.

[VarryOn]

54. I am eager for a smaller field...

The four you mentioned and a couple of ones struggling to gain support. But, I’m ok letting the single digiters tilt at windmills a bit longer, but only because no one is paying much attention. After January, that bunch needs to make serious gains quickly or move on.

Of the lesser candidates, O’rourke seems to be the only one at least trying to nail Jello to the wall. While it’s yet to pay off, at least he’s trying something by not letting El Paso fade away without trying to get his campaign to capitalize. Still, I don’t see him improving enough to replace any of the big four.

I’m ready though to see folks coalesce around a few so we can start seeing big rallies and large number of Democrats supporting each of the candidates. The tyranny of choices, while encouraging and exciting at first, is growing a little tiresome.

[dawg day]

58. This is an ugly fact, so read at your own risk--

In June 2015, Trump was at 1%.

Jeb Bush 22%
Scott Walker 17%
Marco Rubio 14%
Ben Carson 11%
Mike Huckabee 9%


Trump was at #11.

This article barely mentioned him.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-surges-lead-gop-pack-new-2016-poll

[jcgoldie]

72. Yeah thats what I was thinking about reading the OP

But I didn't have the stomach to research the numbers.

[Funtatlaguy]

76. There is no Trump in our field and even if there was

the Dem electorate would not elevate him as the gop did.

[Garrett78]

78. Besides that, Trump didn't enter the race until June 16, 2015.

But, as you said, the GOP electorate is a whole different can of worms.

[lunasun]

81. Also his biggest challenge at the end near the R convention was ted Cruz !

@4% on this poll review at link so

[dawg day]

59. Lesser candidate with a strong idea or focus can be helpful in shaping the discourse--

Andrew Lang is focused on income equality.
Inslee is focused on climate change.
Gillibrand on gender equity.



They can ask the questions, force these issues into the debates. If these weren't important-- if this were the GOP and the "issues" were things like "bad people are burning the flag," and "the confederate flag is sacred" and "the war on Christmas", sure, the minority candidates would have no use.

But those three (and others) Democrats have thoughtful things to stay about genuinely important issues that otherwise might not get discussed here in the early stages.

I think it's worth giving them some time. It's not the 1% candidates who will draw support from the eventual nominee, and they can help shape the debate at this point. They'll naturally peel away around the first primary or when the money dries up.

[Garrett78]

60. All of those issues would still be getting discussed if the field was cut to, say, 8 candidates.

Dems aren't going to ignore climate change simply because Inslee exits the race. There are no climate change deniers in our field.

On that note, being seen as a single-issue candidate dooms a Democratic candidate's chances. To stick with Inslee as an example, he's been pegged as the climate change candidate from the very beginning. I'm sure he hoped that would help him get recognition initially, but he desperately needed to be seen as more than that if he was ever going to gain traction. You absolutely cannot run as a single-issue candidate and hope to win the Democratic Party nomination.

[dawg day]

62. Exactly-- the candidates in the lead can't be single issue--

But the ones bringing up the rear can be.
Would anyone but Yang would be discussing guaranteed annual income? I don't know, but he's keeping that prospective solution in play.
JMHO. I think "also rans" can have an important use at this stage. I don't think they will after the first primary.

Far worse will be a real nasty campaign between two front-runners, as we had in 2016.

[kacekwl]

63. I love it, one day

You are being chastised for still being undecided the next day for who your choice is. A lot can happen in a day a week a month. I think I'll wait awhile if you don't mind.

[R B Garr]

68. Agreed, reduce some of the circular firing squad. The debates

don’t need to be an insult-fest amongst Democrats just to chase name recognition.

Thanks for this thread, MM.

[James48]

79. I'm with Bernie.

He’s the real deal.

[MineralMan]

80. OK. That's not what this thread is about, though.

[Midwestern Democrat]

83. Well, IMO, I don't think the party did itself any favors by having very limited presidential fields

from 2008 forward - 2008 was for all intents and purposes Hillary vs Obama and 2016 was Hillary vs Sanders. I can remember the dark days in the immediate ashes of the 2016 loss where many Democrats were asking "Who the hell are we going to run in 2020?" Biden didn't immediately come to mind - by historical standards, he was considered too old. Minority status across the board for most of the years since the 1994 disaster had also limited the ability of younger Democrats to emerge as national figures. There are too many candidates running at the moment, but I think it's better than having a situation where we're putting all of our eggs in one or two baskets with no real thought of what we're going to do once both those baskets are no longer available.