Too many Democratic candidates in the race for President.

[rateyes]

With the number of candidates in the race right now, we run the risk, in my opinion, of nominating a candidate that a majority of Democrats do not support. I know the same is true in the Republican race, but this is Democratic Underground, and that's where my focus is.

Since the "front runner" we are told is Hillary Clinton, I will use her as the example...but, the same holds true for all of the candidates. Hillary could win the nomination, getting most of the votes in the primaries (whose dates are getting closer and closer together--not a good thing in my opinion)...and still only garner 1 out of every 3 votes (for example) with all of the other votes being split among all the other candidates. In other words, the opposition to the "front runner" is diluted.

It may very well be the case that whomever is eventually nominated, had he/she only had to compete with one other candidate in the primaries that he/she might not have secured the nomination.

Personally speaking, I will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee happens to be because the alternative really sucks gravy. I qualify that only to the degree that a WINNABLE third party candidate/ticket ends up on the ballot. However, I don't think that will happen. I hope we don't have an independent candidate that helps the Republican ticket. However, I think it will be a shame if, because of the math, we end up with a Democratic candidate that the majority of Democrats would rather not see running. That won't be healthy for either the party or, more importantly, the nation.

Therefore, I hope one of two things occur. The first would be that after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, that all the candidates but the top two drop out of the race, in order that a majority of the party can decide who will be the nominee, rather than take the risk that we end up with a nominee about which the majority does not feel good.

The second scenario that would please me right now is for a candidate to enter the race that blows away the rest of the field by gaining a majority of support regardless of the number of candidates running.

Just thinking out loud.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Meh, it's not a whole lot different than in the past.

And if past races are any indication, then certainly a number of candidates will drop out after Iowa and NH.

[rateyes]

4. Well, that being said...

I hope that until one candidate secures a MAJORITY of the delegates needed, that the second place person doesn't drop out. Or that NONE drop out until the convention, and that no one has a majority of the delegates, and that we fight it out on the floor.

[Lasher]

2. OK I'll chime in

This started way way too early to suit me. But I think Gore is going to be our nominee. If I'm right, we'll rise above the concerns you have shared.

[rateyes]

6. That would suit me fine. I think the majority

of Dems could get behind Gore. He might be the one to "blow away the opposition."

[AndyA]

3. I think you're right. Hillary and Barack should drop out.

:rofl:

[rateyes]

5. If Hillary and Barack end up third or below in the first

two events...that's what I'm saying.

[Zensea]

7. Democracy is messy

deal with it.
You can hope that sort of stuff happens, but enforcing it would be a bad idea.

I also think you are forgetting that this is what conventions are for (or used to be for) to work these sorts of things out when there have been a lot of candidates.

[rateyes]

8. I know it's messy...

And, again, I'm just thinking out loud. I wouldn't try to "enforce" anything. I just don't want to see a Democratic president elected who is crippled from the get go. Jeez.

[Forkboy]

9. Not enough.

[mmonk]

10. You and I hope for different things.

Less candidates, less issues confronted and more equivocating. Maybe the candidate that enters late will be Gore.

[rateyes]

11. Gore works for me...

and, he would get a majority, IMHO.

[mmonk]

12. He would be a consensus I believe.

[Skidmore]

13. I have no problem with the number of people running, but I do have

problems with the unending campaigns between elections. It's way to early.

[Rageneau]

14. Let's elect them all and let them share.

How about a seven-person presidency? Like the Supreme Court, majority would rule on issues of national importance. If Dennis and Mike Gavel each had one vote in a total of seven, no policy could be enacted without considering their point of view (unlike today).

In a seven-democrat presidency, the needs of working folk, the poor, the peacemakers and the rational would always be represented -- also, unlike today.

And, in the end, even the WORST policies decided upon by this hydra-like president would be far better than those enacted by the no-headed presidencies Repugnantones foist upon us.