Why would anyone drop out after Iowa ??

[kentuck]

Is it only about lack of money? Surely no one that commits to run for the Presidency would give up so easily after such a small number of delegates have been chosen? It makes one wonder if their heart was ever in it, to begin with?

Just a little over a month from now, we will have Super Tuesday and more than a 1000 delegates will be chosen on that day. Iowa is just a drop in the bucket compared to those delegates to be won on that day. Anything could have happened between now and then. Does no one believe in miracles anymore?

[no name no slogan]

1. No money, and no chance to raise any

Which is yet another reason we need PUBLICLY-FUNDED campaigns. But I highly doubt that will happen, as our leading candidates seem to like the current system as it is.

[MADem]

4. Money is speech, though. If you can't convince anyone to send you ten bucks, how viable are you?

That's the danger of publicly funded campaigns. I personally don't want to listen to assholes who can't convince anyone to support them. You get a stageful of assholes and bozos, many of whom are undermedicated and bizarre. While the whole "BIG MONEY" business is a bit distasteful, the NUMBER of contributors to me is more meaningful than the AMOUNTS that people raise. If a candidate can get a million people to give him or her five or ten bucks each, well, there's someone with a bit of support.

[no name no slogan]

8. One man's "asshole" is another man's visionary

Back in the 1920s and 1930s, those who spoke up for civil rights were "assholes". The major parties wouldn't even touch the issue, and it was up to the Socialists and various leftist third parties to make an issue of it-- until the major parties took it up twenty years later.

And we don't have to ban individual contributions-- just the dollar amount of them.

[MADem]

12. Yeah, but if one man likes the "visionary," and several million find him to be an asshole,

he's WASTING TIME.

Your civil rights strawman isn't true. It's a real stink bomb to toss out there, but it's bullshit.

Sure, racists didn't like those who spoke up for equality, they still don't. But for your example to be true, there would have to be only a tiny number of people who believed in equality, and that's a false assertion. After all, the 20's opened with voting rights for women. Equality was a theme. In the 20's and 30's, too, we were coming off a world war, followed by a short economic frenzy, and then we landed in the middle of The Great Depression. There was plenty for the politicians to talk about. And the southern Democrats had their thing going, and they controlled the Senate. No 'viable' politician was going to tilt at that windmill, because they'd be shot down.

It didn't mean that there wasn't support for equality, there just wasn't support for it in the region that had a vested interest in keeping black people disenfranchised. The southern senators had a bloc that could screw anyone looking to pass legislation--you played ball, or else.

There are fifty people running in the NH primary, at least. Most of them are whack jobs. One guy actually is running because he had a "vision" in a dream with strongly religious overtones. I don't want to waste my time listening to that crazy asshole, frankly. I actually value my time, and I believe that the vetting of candidates via the process of supporting them with contributions isn't a bad thing.

If there were a way to deephasize amounts, and emphasize numbers, well, certainly, that would be a good thing. But there's a reason that the phrase "Put your money where you mouth is" prevails. Money is a valued commodity, and if you give it to someone in a BELIEF that they can use it to articulate a viewpoint that you agree with, that's a very powerful endorsement.

Words are cheap, cash is dear.

[no name no slogan]

22. It's not a strawman, and it's the truth

NO SERIOUS REFORM has ever originated in the two-major-party system. The impetus comes from a third party-- and eventually gets co-opted by one of the major parties. Any first-year student of PoliSci at any college can tell you that. From abolition to Social Security, major reforms have come from without, NOT WITHIN, the mainstream.

Giving the "fringe" a voice renews democracy and exposes new ideas to people. The truly crazy, crackpot ideas will be exposed for what they are, and those that have merit will get further exposure-- and bring about real change.

[MADem]

24. Oh, joy. Another "The Two Party system SUX, dude" rant!

Why the fuck are you here, then, at a website that SUPPORTS the system and was established to SUPPORT Democratic candidates for election? And specifically, supports one of the two parties in your hated two party system?

It was a strawman, and it wasn't based in fact. It simply wasn't the issue du jour back in the day.

I'm uninterested in sifting through hundreds of flaky twits at bullshit "debates" to get to the viable candidates. If you want to do it, knock yourself out--no one's stopping you. Don't expect that I'll cheer on the process...

[no name no slogan]

25. Um, no, I NEVER SAID THAT. Try reading my post, please.

What I said was that reform DOES NOT come from within the established two parties, and that reform movements BEGIN outside the two parties, and are later co-opted by a major party once they reach critical mass. And as I said, this is basic Politics 101.

And it was NOT a strawman. Go back in American history and you'll see that reform movements get their start outside the mainstream and are eventually assimilated.

By including MORE voices, we get to hear those ideas SOONER.

BTW, I am a Democrat and a progresive, but it does NOT mean I'm a slavish devotee to this party. I've been an activist and a paid member of Democrats' campaigns, I've got the pedigree and party experience to prove it. However, I am not afraid to criticize my party OR the system it is part of-- in fact, I believe it's essential to a vibrant democracy.

Apparently you don't value dissent, and think unquestionably parroting the party line is the way to make the world a better place. To each his own.

[MADem]

26. Your strawman, if you pull the string back a few posts, was that Civil Rights protesters in the

twenties were "assholes." That was your strawman.

And they weren't. Well, they were to one group--the racists. But, then, they're STILL assholes--to the racists, even today.

THAT's what I was talking about. You sorta moved the goalposts.

I value dissent, but I don't value bullshit, circular dissent. There's way too much of that "clubby" dissent going on lately, where the goal isn't to get the word out to a larger audience, but participate in a sort of Scavenger Hunt of hectoring and whining, with no goal of reaching anyone but their own little club of fellow whiners.

[no name no slogan]

27. Exactly. One man's "asshole" is another man's saint

Visionaries are rarely valued in their own times. I think that's where the confusion comes in.

I worked on staff in the 1980s for an organization that was working for health care reform. I was called "asshole" many a time, even by Democrats, who didn't think that expanding Medicare benefits was a good thing.

And one man's whining can be another's speaking out. It may sound like whining to some (especially after you've heard it a few times), but when the channels of communication are denied to you because you don't win some popularity contest sponsored by a media outlet that won't give you the time of day, well...

[MADem]

28. But that wasn't the point you were trying to make. You were suggesting that there

was no impetus at all for civil rights back then. There was, in the former abolitionist states and in the west. But the southern Senators controlled the Hill, and they effectively stymied every effort to the end of civil rights until a flawed but interesting character named Lyndon rose to power and used his influence (from the INSIDE) to change things with his "Great Society."

[no name no slogan]

31. Sorry, I've got a headcold so it probably isn't making sense

I think we are pretty much agreed on 99% of stuff. I would argue that the Civil Rights movement started outside of the political parties, partially because those activists were shut out. True, you had some politicians like Hubert Humphrey in the 1940s who were supporters, but their beliefs weren't part of the party mainstream until at least a decade later. But I would argue that the Civil Rights movement itself was largely off the public radar until the 1950s.

And LBJ was on the inside, true, but he didn't really become a convert to the cause until after he became Vice President.

[MADem]

32. HA!!!!!!! I've got one, too!!!

A headcold, that is. Brutal thing!

If you haven't read CARO's MASTER OF THE SENATE, it's a great read. You see the flawed Lyndon, and an alternatingly subservient and fiery HHH in the pages, too. And of course, the path to meaningful civil rights legislation, with all of the heroes and sinners in the mix. It's a bit long, but WELL worth reading...

[no name no slogan]

34. Cool, thanks for the recommend!

I always thought LBJ got a bum deal. If it were not for Vietnam (a BIG flaw), he probably would be remembered as a fairly decent president. And compared to what followed, a genius.

LBJ was a politician's politician and a real piece o' work. I heard a story about him once, in one of his early elections (possibly for the House?) where he was running in the primary against a pig farmer. To gain an edge, he told one of his campaign aides to spread the rumor that the farmer was enjoying carnal knowledge of his pigs.

"Sir, are you saying we should call him a pigfucker? Nobody will believe that!"

"I know that," LBJ said. "But I want to see that sonuvabitch DENY IT." :rofl:

[MADem]

35. It's a true story He was a sharp and vicious campaigner....

I've always wanted to get Doris Kearns Goodwin hammered sometime. You know that she and Lyndon had "a thang" back in the day. I hope she's kept a diary because that little bit of business shouldn't be lost to the mists of history.

She was/is a class act, though--she wasn't gonna say jack whilst the lovely, dignified and long-suffering Lady Bird lived. And that was the right course to take. She STILL hasn't piped up--I guess she has a few more history books in her. But her opus will be "The Lyndon Diaries"--if she ever has the stones to write that gem!

[Egnever]

19. like the current system as it is ?

What in the world are you talking about both obama and Edwards talk about campaign reform all the time. And obama actually has legislation pending on it.

Talk out of your butt much?

[no name no slogan]

21. EVERYBODY "talks" about how bad it is

and wrings their hands about it. But you know damn well nobody will do anything about it as long as they keep getting paid.

NO candidate is above it. NONE.

[MADem]

29. You can't read, I see.

You didn't read what I wrote about contributors vs. total amounts of cash raised (which is NOT the 'current system as is'), and you sure as fuck didn't read the DU rules, either.

But then, I guess it takes one to think they know one, is that it?

Enjoy the view from that high horse!!!

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. That would make for a very interesting article or program.

[gateley]

3. In this particular instance, it's because all except the top 4 in Iowa were excluded

from the NH debate. If I were in NH and watching the debates, I'd be making my decision from the 4 candidates debating -- what good would it have done Dodd and Biden to hang around? They wouldn't have received that much needed exposure to garner votes.

If you were Dodd or Biden, what would you have done?

[kentuck]

6. "If you were Dodd or Biden, what would you have done?"

I think I would have went to NH? Surely some newsmen would have asked them why they didn't drop out after Iowa? They would have gotten some attention by just staying in. Either Biden or Dodd could possibly have done much better in NH, in my opinion.

Neither Iowa or NH is representative of America. Iowa has mostly white voters, who lean to the conservative side, or the side of less conflict. New Hampshire has mostly white voters, but also a large proportion of Independent voters who traditonally lean to the Republican side. They may be more "business friendly" or "market oriented" than many other states, which leads them to smaller government positions. Basically, those two states are set up to make it easier to maintain the status quo, in my opinion.

[gateley]

9. I agree with you to the extent that IA or NH aren't necessarily representative

of America.

I feel if Biden and Dodd had gotten more exposure, they would have shown better.

They spent their time and money in Iowa -- which, like it or not, is Step One of the primary race.

You would have gone to NH. Okay. So you arrive in town, you're interviewed, you explain why you're not giving up. Then that night everyone turns on the TV and you're not there at the debate.

The media is going to be covering the debate -- who won, who said what, etc.,

You have three days to get voters, but the media isn't paying any attention to you. They're analyzing the debates. They're analyzing post-debate polls. You're not included in those polls. The "I like him but he can't win" belief is reinforced in the minds of the voters.

So NOW what do you do?

[kentuck]

10. You manipulate the media...

By calling a reporter or two and giving them some controversial or interesting quotes:

For example, you might say that you haven't decided who you might support, Obama or Hillary, if you have to drop out of the race?

Or you might say something controversial like, "Obama doesn't have the necessary experience to be President in this dangerous world..."

Or something to get a headline or two. There are more ways to skin a cat than just being on TV with Tim Russert. By the way, I think Hillary was smart not to go on MTP with Timmy this morning. She knows his tactics. There was nothing to be gained.

[gateley]

11. Not to be contrary, but he HAS given LOTS of controversial statements which

have garnered headlines, then attention turns back to The Three.

A good example of this is when Bhutto was assassinated. Chris Matthews interviewed Biden which was to be expected, since he'd almost foretold the possibility of this happening, and was talking about Pakistan for quite a while.

Matthews gets Biden's input, then switches to a Panel discussing which candidate has the most experience -- only including Clinton, Obama and Edwards in the discussion. This would have been a perfect point to insert Biden into the conversation, but nope, just The Three.

He has never been included in the "viable" group when it comes to the media.

And Dodd had even less exposure because Biden was sought out for his Foreign Policy statements during the events in Pakistan -- Dodd wasn't.

:shrug:

[kentuck]

13. But the media has 12-24 hour attention span...

Some candidates, such as McCain, know how to get media attention. I recall that he announced he was running about 5 times before he was actually noticed.

[gateley]

20. Bottom line for me is, I just personally don't think they could have accomplished

much even if they'd stayed in until the end of January. I'm guessing Dodd and Biden felt that way too, which is why they dropped out. :shrug:

I'd LOVED to have had them around longer, believe me! :hi:

[kentuck]

30. I can understand that they had little support in Iowa.

But did they expect to never do any better? Why couldn't they have managed their resources better if they were going to run for President? Personally, I would have wanted to see a few more cards before I folded my hand.

[LucyParsons]

5. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

nt

[Armstead]

7. If you had a really bad showing then there is no hope

If Biden or Dodd had gotten a more measurable total, they probably would have stayed in.

[slick8790]

14. It's not just that it's Iowa...

If you can't pull 2% or more in any state, you're NOT gonna be the nominee, plain and simple.

[Egnever]

15. Well

The ones that dropped had no cash and low standings in the polls everywhere else. It didnt make sense for them to go on. They certasinly could but the results would not have been any different.

Clinton however wont quit till after feb 5th.

[kentuck]

17. Do you think Kucinich should drop out also?

Does he still have a chance?

[Egnever]

18. Dennis

never had a shot and he knows it. He isnt in this to win he is in to get his message out. Theres a difference.

[Cleita]

16. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

I think deals have been cut behind the scenes. The front runners are probably promising cabinet or other high level positions to the drop outs in exchange. Just MHO. I could be wrong.

[demommom]

23. I think you probably are wrong,with all due respect.

[terryg11]

33. I agree

the only thing I can think of is if they were figuring to be a longshot and needing the momentum. STill, Iowa is an early contest and honestly not very large so who knows what could happen once out of here.