We have too many candidates. What's really going on here?

[Vidal]

Now there are 24 Dems running for president. That is way too many.

The more there are, the less chance they have of getting any delegates from any caucus or primary, due to 15% rule.

This favors Biden above all. If candidates don't drop out it is possible in some caucuses and primaries Biden could be the only candidate to get ANY delegates at all. (This would mean even Bernie failed to get 15% which is possible because the progressive vote is being split among too many people.)

I'm not sure this is a good thing. I'm not sure why so many people are running.

What's really going on here?

[zipplewrath]

1. Job advancement

I strongly suspect the vast majority of these candidates that have no federal experience what so ever are basically "padding their resume". They are angling for a cabinet position, or looking to elevate their name recognition for future runs for office. All of them of course have some hope that they "catch fire". But I also expect many of them are also thinking that maybe there could be a VP possibility as well.

[NurseJackie]

5. Auditioning for VP or cabinet positions?

Auditioning for VP or cabinet positions?

Improving their CV by adding another line-item of "former candidate for Democratic nominee..."

Getting a book deal?

Increased speaker's fees?

Giving their grandchildren something to brag about at show-and-tell?

Who knows?! I think it's messy and distracting.

[zipplewrath]

6. Consequence of Citizens United

National politics has become an industry. Citizens United ramped up the amount of money available. There are now so many people attempting to get into the business of politics, and there is so much money floating around, that they need alot of candidates in order to drive demand for consultants and polling data (not to mention opposition research). So if you get the idea to run for office, there is probably someone who will encourage you to do so in order to drum up business for themselves. And their reputation will not so much be built upon winning and losing, or advancing a cause, as it will be their ability to raise money, and manage the candidates media image.

And none of this is good for the country.

[MBS]

16. I agree that this has a lot to do with it.

Last edited Thu May 16, 2019, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

especially with the more marginal candidates. Honest competition is better than a pre-ordained candidate.
But more than 6 candidates - and especially more than 10– it's not really a competition any more.

[zipplewrath]

34. Especially these

Look, if you had 15 senators and governors one might be able to suggest that this is a solid competition. It just seems to me that many of these candidates don't really have a "starting position" from which to launch credible campaigns. But politics seems to be changing these days so maybe this is how it works now. I dunno.

[NurseJackie]

32. I hadn't considered that, but it certainly makes logical sense.

[zipplewrath]

36. Political Industrial Complex

https://billmoyers.com/story/political-industrial-complex-government-consultants/

[MBS]

60. yeah, nails it. n/t

[Vidal]

63. Agree

Yes, what you say makes a lot of sense. Maybe if you boil it all down, it's all about money. No surprise there.

[at140]

19. ---------this------------

[Vidal]

27. You might be right

but it still seems like 24 is too big a number.

[trueblue2007]

56. i agree. too many candidates. but they are all good people.

[brush]

51. Good points. Many will soon be out when they don't meet the fund raising...

Last edited Thu May 16, 2019, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)

requirements for the first debate. Why some of the ones who have been in for a while might not make the requirement—the Gabards, Gillibrands and the like so this latest batch won't be around long.

[hlthe2b]

2. It is their choice, of course, but I'm frustrated that more will not take on the Senate...

Several of them (if successful) are either leaving behind Senate seats (that are not all safe) or are declining to challenge vulnerable Republican incumbents, whose seats could mean everything to our chances of taking the Senate (or at least increasing our numbers).

Of course, the Senate is not a "fun" place to be with McConnell in power, but damn, could we have just a few less of our most competitive candidates chose that challenge over the intensely improbable chance they will win the Dem primaries?

[pangaia]

4. That is my concern also, the Senate.

[MBS]

17. Agreed.

Several of the candidates in question would be very strong Senate candidates.
Would like to see some of the excess presidential candidates help us win back the Senate instead. Some commenter (I think I heard this on NPR) pointed out that a presidential candidate who dropped out could transfer his/her funds and supporter info pretty easily and quickly to a Senate campaign.. .but I personally have my doubts that this could be a viable maneuver.

[Vidal]

29. Is it too late?

I'm wondering if some of these announced candidates might still run for Senate seats. Or is it too late?

[hlthe2b]

41. Not if they decide to pretty quickly

[sop]

49. Rubio swore he wouldn't run for re-election to the Senate when he ran for president

He thought it would make him seem like a "serious candidate," and less of an opportunist. Then, after he had to concede defeat in the presidential primaries pretty late in the game, he went back on his word to Florida voters and got back in the Senate race.

Little Marco also did a pretty amazing flip-flop on his opinion of Trump. He suddenly endorsed Donald and campaigned with him, no doubt to win over Trump's supporters. I guess Donald's fingers got a little longer, and he was no longer a con man.

[Shell_Seas]

3. Brand growth.

[Farmer-Rick]

7. Promoting confusion and disarray?

Not sure it does though. I can keep the candidates straight and know the handful I really would like to see as president.

But a casual observer would think if you have a large number of candidates competing with each other it will lead to confusion. I'm thinking of the voter who is not paying attention and may find it daunting to go through the positions of each candidate. In those cases the voter may go with their feelings and we know feelings are unreliable and easily manipulated.

[Vidal]

30. It helps Biden if . . .

You say "the voter may go with their feelings" and if that's true Biden wins since he has universal name recognition and most Dems feel positive about him, especially because of his association in their minds with the Obama years.

[zentrum]

8. Couldn't agree more.

It's starting to hurt us I think.

We need a few clear voices opposing Trump. Not 24 critiquing each other.

The latest entry seems especially hubristic.

[Vidal]

33. I agree

if they start attacking each other it really hurts us. But they haven't done that yet. Hope it doesn't ever come to that.

[zentrum]

61. Will be hard to avoid

...during dabates.

Wish they would just endorse instead of showcase themselves at this point.

[brutus smith]

9. Really?

It is beginning to look like a clown show.
Really? 24? If they have that much difference in how the country should be run, then we're in trouble.

[PoliticAverse]

10. There will only be 20 candidates in the debates, so the number is effectively capped. n/t

[DownriverDem]

14. I'm only watching

the one with Biden.

[Autumn]

11. Name recognition. nt

[beastie boy]

12. The more the merrier! Trump is sucking all the air out of media coverage.

With so many Democratic candidates, each one of them robs the pompous ass of a little bit of it. We also get to hear what the Democratic candidates stand for, not just how rich and beloved the orange clown fancies himself to be, from a variety media sources.

In time, the herd will surely thin out, but right now we have the Democrats taking charge of the narrative. A good thing no matter how you look at it.

[Laelth]

23. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[Vidal]

35. Maybe, but not completely

I like what you wrote, but am not sure "right now we have the Democrats taking charge of the narrative."

But it could help us as the media is desperate every day for some new compelling story.

[beastie boy]

59. Yes, I am being optimistic here

I wrote "taking charge" rather than "took charge" deliberately. I hope the Democrats develop more strategies to take charge of the narrative as time goes by.

[DesertRat]

13. Book sales, name recognition. nt

[JI7]

15. many will drop out before voting starts

[Hortensis]

26. Exactly. Most when the money runs out.

Running up debt is for people who can win.

Itm, they're out there making lemonade by crossing the country talking about what we believe in and can and should be doing.

[Vidal]

37. Really?

I think they'll start dropping out, but only AFTER the voting starts.

[Maru Kitteh]

18. Don't worry - the VAST MAJORITY will be gone before the first primary with

all but a tiny handful gone before super tuesday.

Don't get me wrong - IT'S RIDICULOUS - but it will sort out.

[Baclava]

62. I agree, there will be a half dozen real contenders left standing, at most

But everyone has a right to choose to run, I don't think it will be a bad thing at all

[MBS]

20. I also find the excess puzzling, and (especially with 24) disturbing.

In addition to your concern that the excess number might end up favoriting the front-runner TOO much, the large number also raises the near-certainty that even the front-runner could have won with only a plurality, not a majority of actual votes, even if he (or she) won the all, or almost all, of the delegates. Not healthy, IMO.

[mtnsnake]

21. It's simple. So many Democrats are entering the 2020 contest because

each and every one of them thinks 2020 will be an easy victory for whomever the Democratic candidate ends up being. They might not admit it publicly because it would make them look overconfident, but most of them would not be entering the race if they didn't think Trump would be such an easy victory in 2020.

The ones who are making 2020 out to be a close election are the folks in the media who will try to have everyone believing that it will be close in order to keep their ratings up. On the contrary to what the media is dishing out, 2020 will be a once in a lifetime opportunity for a relatively easy Democratic victory, so that's why everyone under the sun is jumping in. I mean, how many times does someone get to go up against a fucking dunce like Donald Trump who is so hated around country and around the world? Rarely, if ever.

[Laelth]

24. Good point. n/t

-Laelth

[Apple Fritter]

31. love this comment.

I totally agree that the media has kind scared people into thinking Trump is a bigger threat than he really is as a legitimate candidate. Maybe better as a crazy dictator.

[Vidal]

38. Gulp . . .

your post has me worried.

We thought 2016 was going to be an easy Dem. victory also.

[MH1]

46. I go back to 2000.

Many dems sighed a big sigh of relief when McCain lost to Bush in the R primary. Thinking Bush being such a mental lightweight and fool would make him easy to beat.

Oops.

(of course there was lots of voter suppression that year, particularly in Florida. Hanging chads wouldn't have mattered if they hadn't purged something like 80,000 likely-Dem voters.)

[CrispyQ]

22. IMO, it makes the party look disorganized & fractured,

like we're in reactionary mode, not strategic. Do we have solid challengers for every republican Senate seat up for grabs in 2020?

2020 Senate Election - 270towin.com

snip...
The U.S. Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats (including two independents). There are 34 seats up in 2020 - including a special election in Arizona - of which 22 are held by the GOP. Democrats will need to gain 3 or 4 seats to take control.


Democratic challengers to Cory Gardner (R-CO) - 9news.com

[Vidal]

40. You are right

We have a chance to win the Senate in 2020 if each competitive state had a really strong Dem. candidate.

I don't think it's too late for that to happen, though.

[brooklynite]

65. Why is it "obvious" that Hickenlooper, Bullock, Castro etc. would be "great" Senate candidates?

Some people aren't.

Some people don't WANT to be a legislator.

[Vidal]

66. This is what "Great" means . .

It means they would probably win and help turn the Senate blue which is what we need!

[Celerity]

25. Judging by her interview on MSNBC today, sounds like 25 maybe soon (Stacey Abrams)

That all said

I see the following having no real chance

in no real order

Messam
Gravel
Ryan
Klobuchar
Bennet
Bullock (should run for Senate, but he is my dark horse to break out of this group)
de Blasio
Williamson
Castro (should run for Senate if Beto will not or even if he does)
Delaney
Gabbard
Gillibrand
Hickenlooper (should run for Senate)
Beto (should run for Senate if Castro doesn't or even if he does)
Moulton
Swalwell (would make a superb Senator to replace Harris is Harris is POTUS or VPOTUS)
Yang

that leaves

eight

Biden
Warren
Harris
Buttigieg
Booker (maybe)
Sanders (zero chance he gets the nomination, the system will block him, as he is the only one of the 8 who is a sure loser)
Inslee (maybe)
Abrams (if she runs for POTUS, otherwise she is my number one VPOTUS pick, especially for Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg, should they be top of the ticket)

pulling out Booker, Inslee......

That leaves 6 with any real shot of getting a lot of delegates, and Pete will have to (he certainly is one of the most capable of doing it) have massive debate performances to gain enough traction, and Abrams needs to soon jump in if she has any intention of running for the top of the ticket.

I feel very confident that I am probably correct with most all of this prognostication. The only remotely unclear variables I am not feeling 100% solid on would be Inslee (global climate change concerns exploding) or Bullock (he has a BIG personality and projects executive leadership power every time I have seen him, he would be a great POTUS, I just have that 'gut' feel and he, more than anyone else, even Biden, has a great, proven record of bending a hard RW government to his will over and over and over) or Booker catching fire, and then, the big one, what will Stacey do.

[RLG]

50. I hate to say this about your candidate, but he really should think about running statewide too.

He's the reason why there are so many candidates. They feel if he could run for President, then why can't they run?

[Celerity]

57. lol, Pete is not to blame for the crowded field, Trump and a very diverse party are

As for running statewide, he is in a ruby red state, but this POTUS run certainly helps his chances if he chooses to go that route in future. I also helps him, should he not win or be picked as VP in 2020, for a future POTUS run. I am sure, given his extraordinary intellect and instincts that he has contingency plans given any outcome.

[essadaw]

52. there already is a great candidate for Texas Senate

why not support her instead of hoping Beto or Castro to primary her. And it is hypocritical to criticize Beto and Castro for not running for Senate but be fine with Abrams. I like all three and don't see the problem with letting Beto Castro or Abrams make their case.

[Celerity]

58. because they both have a better shot at the Senate than winning the POTUS nomination

I do grant either could be VPOTUS.

[LanternWaste]

28. The number of candidates more than a year out is not meaningful metric in any way.

Nearly 2,500 people have run for president since 1980, in the sense that they filled out the requisite form with the Federal Election Commission. Since many have run multiple times, it's a grand total of more than 3,100 separate candidacies.

Allowing the chaff to separate from the wheat is an effective first step in retaking the WH.

[Kaleva]

39. I don't see any evidence that all will still be running by the time of the 1st primaries.

[Hulk]

42. Plenty of time..

They want their messages to be heard, and most are realistic in knowing it may only be a window to VP.

November 2020 is 18 months away.

[Mr.Bill]

43. I've been saying for awhile

we have a handful of viable candidates. The rest are selling books. And some of the viable candidates are also selling books.

I also think that any funding they raise for the presidential primaries that is left over can be used for future campaigns.

[murielm99]

44. I live in a red district.

I was surprised by how many Democrats were running for the Congressional seat. By the time the primary came around, there were only two left. Most of the time, we have a "No Candidate Filed" for that spot. I don't forsee that happening again!

The support and money were there. The momentum and anger were there.

Our eventual candidate lost, but she ran a smart campaign, and received around 45% of the vote. She is running again and will do even better next time.

Maybe that explains some of it. There is money, support, momentum, anger.

[LovingA2andMI]

45. Disarray.....

That is what is going on and Tom Perez needs to get ahold of this mess ASAP!!!

[MissKat]

47. I wonder if we have this many candidates so the Orange Blunder

gets distracted?

How can he possibly think up names for each of them? How can he possibly respond to each of them?

By having this many the hate he gives has to be spread very thin.

Just kick back, relax, and focus on the future. I really think the list will be narrowed down quite soon as money begins to dry up for the ones who can't get kick-started.

In the meantime, we're getting to know some very fine Democratic candidates. This will be a valuable experience for each of them.

[TygrBright]

48. Dollahs dollahs dollahs!! Name recognition!! Future electability!!!

There's no disincentive anywhere in the electoral system to keep marginally-viable candidates from strapping on that "Vote for ME!" hat and raising big ol' bucks that they can then eventually transfer to another campaign for another office.

And there's terrific INCENTIVE from the expanding-like-fetid-yeast Campaign Management Industry, which is adding high-paying jobs for talented grifters, marketers, socially-awkward geeks, and spokesweasel whores at a phenomenal rate.

Just ask them!! They'll tell you all about what a great thing it would be if YOU ran!! And how much they could help you! And how it would totally be a great thing for your future career because you'd be "former Presidential Candidate >NOW WITH NAME RECOGNITION<!!

And even if you don't win, all that lovely money they help you raise (assuming you get to keep any of it) will be available for your NEXT campaign!

It's a no-lose proposition!!

Except for voters, of course.

wearily,
Bright

[dewsgirl]

53. I imagine at least a couple more are yet to anounce, it's becoming a mess.

[Freethinker65]

54. If Biden wins the nomination, he might only serve one term. Some are running for veep and name recog

...name recognition for 2024.

Some are just running to influence the political conversation and the eventual Democratic platform. Some are just running for the money and ego boost.

[MineralMan]

55. Everyone remembers Barack Obama. That's why.

He started out as a virtual unknown, and ended up on top. Everyone wants to be Barack Obama in 2018.

That's why so many people whose names nobody knows are running. There's just one problem: They're not Barack Obama.

Nobody is. They're not Bill Clinton, either, or even Jimmy Carter. All of those people came from the bottom of the pack and rose to the top. But, they had something going on about them, and ran at just the right time.

Right now, we have Donald Jerkoff Trump in the White House. Anyone with any sense at all wants him gone. They're not looking for that magical unknown candidate to get that job done. That's why Joe Biden moved to the top as soon as he declared his candidacy. Not only is he well-known and well-liked, he was Barack Obama's VP for eight years. He's the guy Barack Obama hung the Presidential Medal of Freedom on and praised so highly.

This is not one of those years when an unknown is going to surprise us by being the nominee. Not a chance. Democrats want a sure thing. They want Trump gone and they'll show up and vote like their lives depended on it, which they do, maybe.

Barring some unseen disaster, Joe Biden will be the nominee. He might have a little competition from Bernie Sanders and maybe one other person, but in most states, they won't get the 15% of primary votes needed to win delegates.

Unless something really unexpected happens, that's what will probably happen. Then, in November of 2020, we're going to see an unprecedented turnout of Democrats who are hell-bent on kicking Trump out of the White House.

[NurseJackie]

64. Resume-building. The cream will rise to the top and the 3rd-tier/4th-tier candidates...

Resume-building. The cream will rise to the top and the 3rd-tier/4th-tier candidates will quickly fade away.

[Demsrule86]

67. I don't really know...bit think (cynically) must have something to do with money.