The Iowa fiasco makes me even sadder that Kamala, Cory & Julian were forced out before anyone voted

[StarfishSaver]

because they supposedly weren't "viable."

[Mike 03]

1. I was just reading an article about exactly this in New York Magazine.

There's a paragraph calling Kamala, Cory and Beto the closest thing we had besides Biden to the natural successor of Obama.

That hurt. The first thing I wondered was, Can a candidate re-enter a race after exiting?

Believe me, I'm feeling exactly this today.

EDIT: This article: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/democratic-primary-biden-bernie-sanders-buttigieg-klobuchar-bloomberg-liberal.html

The liberal conundrum begins with Joe Biden. The former vice-president led national polls until very recently, and has been the most plausible mainstream liberal candidate. At the same time, doubts about his ability to handle the rigors of the campaign at an advanced age have caused the Democratic Party to withhold the institutional support it gave Hillary Clinton. Yet his name was big enough to preclude a younger, more vigorous Democrat from emerging in the ideological space he occupied. Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris all tried and failed to run as ideological heirs of Barack Obama, because Obama’s actual partner was still there.

I'm not writing off Biden. I'm just sayin'

[PBC_Democrat]

7. They can re-enter at any time ... the issue is money

It's a vicious death spiral - once the poll support starts to drop, the money starts to dry up, which leads to less staff and advertising which leads to less visibility which leads to lower poll numbers which leads to less money ....

If any of the ones you mention can come up with some money ... they can be back in.

That being said - I hate the fact that Steyer and Bloomberg can write a $100 million check to their campaign while others are begging for $5 donations.

Don't know how to fix it -- it just bothers me.

[Mike 03]

31. You are right, certainly.

There's no getting around that bottom line of money.

My 'regret' is just a wistful, what-could-have-been reflection.

It is mostly Kamala Harris whose absence I regret.

Hopefully, Joe can prevail in upcoming primaries. Most people here seem to think he has a good shot. I'll get behind whoever looks the strongest.

[W_HAMILTON]

2. They weren't forced out.

[TwilightZone]

8. Agreed. And Joaquin didn't even run.

[StarfishSaver]

12. Got my Castros mixed up!

Corrected.

But my point stands.

[TwilightZone]

14. It's not much of a point if you don't even know which one ran.

It's difficult to take your deep concern for Castro seriously when you don't even seem to know which one ran.

Your point, as was the case the last dozen times you posted about it (or more), has no basis. No one forced them to suspend their campaigns.

In the current political reality, to remain viable one must find an audience and sponsors. Nothing stopped any of them from continuing to make the attempt, as others have.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Whatever

[hangaleft]

28. Well said, TZ

[rockfordfile]

9. I agree

[krissey]

3. I do think Harris left too early. If only.

[hangaleft]

29. I think Harris would have been our best shot at unseating Trump

Unfortunately, her campaign didn’t catch fire.

I’ve been all-in for Warren from Day 1, but would have been more than content had Harris been our standard bearer. I prefer Warren on the issues and strongly believe that of the remaining candidates she has the best chance of beating Trump. But of all of the candidates in the starting gate, there is no doubt in my mind that Harris was our strongest GE candidate and would have beaten Trump handily

[TwilightZone]

4. Uh, that would be Julian.

I know they look alike, but we should probably remember which one ran for president, especially in a post showing concern about him being "forced" out of the campaign.

[brer cat]

5. I'm sorry they are not still running,

but I'm not sure I agree that they were "forced" out.

[thesquanderer]

6. I think basically they ran out of money. n/t

[Devil Child]

10. Forced out?

Last I checked they each made an informed decision to resign. Are they not responsible for their decisions?

They should’ve continued till Iowa IMO but no sense in claiming they were “forced out.”

[StarfishSaver]

13. They were forced out

[Codeine]

20. How? By whom?

I’m as a big a fan of Kamala Harris as anyone on DU and I wouldn’t characterize her ending her campaign as being “forced” at all. She just ran out of resources and (perceived) momentum.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Resources and momentum were driven almost exclusively by media talking heads and polls

Once they were declared DOA months before a single vote was cast because opinion polls and unbalanced media coverage and analysis, it was impossible for them to continue.

You can pretend this was an organic process, but I and many other people know better.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. Nobody was forced out.

[brush]

24. See post #22

[StarfishSaver]

33. ...

Link to tweet

[Bradshaw3]

15. Give it up already

Nobody was forced out, Effie, and you know it. The supposed fiasco in Iowa had nothing to do with it. Just pot stirring to no good end.

[mcar]

19. Effie?

Surely you aren't equating one black female poster with another. Are you?

[brush]

25. See post #22

[Prof.Higgins]

17. Sen. Harris was top of my preferences, but bellyaching about it is divisive. n/t

[mcar]

18. I've been saying this since Tuesday morning

It makes me so angry.

If 2 mostly white states weren't the first primaries, we'd still, potentially, have them in the race - offering some sound alternatives.

I read somewhere that Klobuchar (who I like, BTW) has less $$ in her campaign acct than Harris does. Yet Harris drops out bc she knows IA and NH aren't truly competitive or representative states.

I really fear we'll be looking back at this in November and realizing we, as a party, made a big mistake.

[brush]

22. Iowa and, NH first unfortunately are now really a form of white privilege that needs to stop.

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2020, 10:40 AM - Edit history (3)

Two nearly all-white states that don't accurately reflect the make-up of our party determine who goes on and gets funding and poll results—and also incidentally they cull out POC candidates in the build-up to them.

Most whites don't perceive this ecause white privilege doesn't negativel affect them. It happens to others. Most will say, "Oh, she or he just ran out of money," in response to being asked about POCs dropping out of the race.

Well—duh, exactly. Polling influences funding and if media outlets interview mostly white Iowans for their preferences, they're going to broadcast that the white candidates are leading in the polls and from that, who do you think is going to get more donations—the ones leading in the polls.

White privilege isn't felt by white candidates but certainly negatively affects POC candidates.

If South Carolina or Nevada were first the results would be completely different.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Definitely

I wish more Democrats better understood this and weren't so quick to dismiss the reality of how a seemingly color-blind process undermines minority candidates.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. I agree. Especially Harris - I really like her.

[PunkinPi]

27. Still salty about the whole process.

I really think Kamala could have gotten the Obama and Clinton coalitions motivated/energized.

[CTyankee]

30. I believe some are still viable as VP potential for our eventual candidate...

and they know it. If they represent a "balance" to the eventual top of the ticket, they can still be seen as VP, thereby keeping alive the Pres. run 8 years hence...

[Sunsky]

32. I agree nt