Democratic Primaries

mtnsnake

(22,236 posts)

25. Surely you jest

Sat Aug 17, 2019, 03:47 PM

Aug 2019

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.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Odds Against a Current Candidate Who Is Polling under 5% Are Very High [View all] MineralMan Aug 2019 OP

I think calling for candidates to drop out on this forum is in bad taste, bad politics bigtree Aug 2019 #1

As always, it's my opinion. MineralMan Aug 2019 #7

you're not expressing that opinion in a vacuum bigtree Aug 2019 #10

Agreed. Some people have the opinion that drump and putin MarcA Aug 2019 #15

Rude! Thekaspervote Aug 2019 #30

Well, I have nothing to do with how Joe Biden is doing. MineralMan Aug 2019 #16

people are still advocating for the issues, interests and concerns they want candidates to represent bigtree Aug 2019 #21

Depends on view of politics DownriverDem Aug 2019 #20

Hickenlooper looks like a lock bigtree Aug 2019 #22

This also applies to Gabbard then. She is listed as a Democrat R B Garr Aug 2019 #66

she should continue her campaign bigtree Aug 2019 #71

Except I don't think Harris is running for VP, either. I've heard R B Garr Aug 2019 #74

Well, Harris would be foolish to say she was running for VP MineralMan Aug 2019 #84

+1 Joe941 Aug 2019 #8

Polls shouldn't decide elections. gtar100 Aug 2019 #56

What's the big hurry? Let them decide. Let the voters decide. dalton99a Aug 2019 #2

What you are suggesting will happen naturally, on its own calguy Aug 2019 #3

You may be right because there are just so many candidates this year. But I have to go back... EarnestPutz Aug 2019 #4

I remember that. I was in high school. yardwork Aug 2019 #69

It's summer! Lots of people are taking a break floppyboo Aug 2019 #5

Most voters, even primary voters, are still not paying that much attention--especially since it's tblue37 Aug 2019 #6

'under 5%' ? crazytown Aug 2019 #9

Yes, under 5%. I chose that number deliberately. MineralMan Aug 2019 #17

The current size of the field is precisely why you might be wrong. Garrett78 Aug 2019 #11

right, but who will get those candidates' supporters? bigtree Aug 2019 #12

The bottom dozen don't have enough supporters to make a difference, except in that... Garrett78 Aug 2019 #23

and will loosen funds bigtree Aug 2019 #26

Here's a peek at how that may play out Thekaspervote Aug 2019 #55

Gabbard's purpose is to cause trouble. yardwork Aug 2019 #70

You could sort of say this about a couple other R B Garr Aug 2019 #82

It is early enough for those currently high to stumble aand one or more who are low to rise karynnj Aug 2019 #13

The other candidates have a lot to offer to the conversation Merlot Aug 2019 #14

Good point! "In 2016 we had the candidate pretty much decided for us." Chemisse Aug 2019 #65

99% certain... under 5%... jcgoldie Aug 2019 #18

It's completely my opinion. MineralMan Aug 2019 #19

I 100% agree with your opinion - makes a lot of sense. Skya Rhen Aug 2019 #24

This message was self-deleted by its author bluewater Aug 2019 #32

Thank you mineral man.. if everyone would point out that what they are post is there opinion Thekaspervote Aug 2019 #57

Surely you jest mtnsnake Aug 2019 #25

No, I don't jest. MineralMan Aug 2019 #27

Thing is, none of our candidates are appearing to be THE magic bullet yet. mtnsnake Aug 2019 #31

Hardly kurtcagle Aug 2019 #64

There's some truth in what you're saying, but... Garrett78 Aug 2019 #28

"the size of the field prevents candidates from developing greater name recognition" mtnsnake Aug 2019 #33

That's contradictory. They simply aren't going to develop greater name recognition... Garrett78 Aug 2019 #35

The DNC has little to do with the primary races. MineralMan Aug 2019 #75

A quibble... spooky3 Aug 2019 #29

I disagree (with backup from 538). At this point in 1991 and 1975 both Clinton and Carter were Persondem Aug 2019 #34

It's early still qazplm135 Aug 2019 #36

More people might pay attention if the field was smaller. Garrett78 Aug 2019 #37

No they wouldn't qazplm135 Aug 2019 #39

Many won't pay attention until next year and I'm not saying we'd see huge shifts... Garrett78 Aug 2019 #42

if this were 1991 qazplm135 Aug 2019 #45

Apples and oranges. The field was considerably smaller. Garrett78 Aug 2019 #47

not really qazplm135 Aug 2019 #48

I didn't say it prohibits anything, but it does make it much less likely. Garrett78 Aug 2019 #51

Thank you for such a fact filled informative post. bluewater Aug 2019 #38

Well said and spot on. n/t mtnsnake Aug 2019 #40

So how did Bill Clinton win then? qazplm135 Aug 2019 #41

Is it January already? could have fooled me question everything Aug 2019 #43

"See you in January" bigtree Aug 2019 #49

That's not really an accurate description, though. nt R B Garr Aug 2019 #67

+10000 Celerity Aug 2019 #50

This is the danger for those who post frequently and attempt to be provocateurs True Dough Aug 2019 #61

which one is the provocateur? nt R B Garr Aug 2019 #77

History says this is wrong Bradshaw3 Aug 2019 #44

Thank You jcgoldie Aug 2019 #73

Rec. cwydro Aug 2019 #46

True. Many need to seek other Democratic political opportunities. democratisphere Aug 2019 #52

lots of data out there from experts says buttigieg still is a serious possibility. so no. Kurt V. Aug 2019 #53

I am eager for a smaller field... VarryOn Aug 2019 #54

This is an ugly fact, so read at your own risk-- dawg day Aug 2019 #58

Yeah thats what I was thinking about reading the OP jcgoldie Aug 2019 #72

There is no Trump in our field and even if there was Funtatlaguy Aug 2019 #76

Besides that, Trump didn't enter the race until June 16, 2015. Garrett78 Aug 2019 #78

Also his biggest challenge at the end near the R convention was ted Cruz ! lunasun Aug 2019 #81

Lesser candidate with a strong idea or focus can be helpful in shaping the discourse-- dawg day Aug 2019 #59

All of those issues would still be getting discussed if the field was cut to, say, 8 candidates. Garrett78 Aug 2019 #60

Exactly-- the candidates in the lead can't be single issue-- dawg day Aug 2019 #62

I love it, one day kacekwl Aug 2019 #63

Agreed, reduce some of the circular firing squad. The debates R B Garr Aug 2019 #68

I'm with Bernie. James48 Aug 2019 #79

OK. That's not what this thread is about, though. MineralMan Aug 2019 #80

Well, IMO, I don't think the party did itself any favors by having very limited presidential fields Midwestern Democrat Aug 2019 #83