I really think it's time to start thinning the pack

[ALago1]

After watching last night's "debate", I can't help but feel that with so many candidates currently in the dem field, it is nearly impossible for any debate (regardless of its format) to fulfill the objectives of:

1) Alotting ample time for each candidate to speak on the issues.
2) Presenting detailed and thoughtful analysis on important issues
3) Revealing the individuality each candidate possesses and the fundamental differences that exist between one another.

In the current setting, it is rare for a candidate to deviate from his or her "stump speech" and as a result we are left with tired and recycled soundbites that don't further either the candidate's or the party's cause.

With such considerations in mind, I really hope that by at least early January, only the following candidates remain in the race:

1)Dean
2)Clark
3)Kerry
4)Edwards
5)Gephardt
6)Lieberman (possibly)

That leaves Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton out. I admire and respect these candidates greatly, but I really think it is time to get down to business especially with Iowa and NH on the horizon.

I admit that even with 6 candidates, in-depth debate covering substantial topics will be tough, but a vast improvement over the vastly diluted field we currently have.

[La_Serpiente]

1. ABOSLUTELY NOT!!!

I liked Kerry's idea where they have two seperate debates. That sounds a lot more realistic.

[ALago1]

9. I must have missed something...

Can you elaborate on Kerry's idea of "two separate debates"? Does it involve having a debate for pack leaders as well as one for the candidates lagging behind? IMO, that just smacks of tokenism.

But then again, I'm blindly assuming Kerry's position, which I shouldn't do.

[indigo32]

28. Kerrys Idea was 4 person debates with a Lottery

deciding who was involved in them... not "pack leaders"

[libertad]

25. 2 separate debates, does that mean rich white guys vs all others?

Sounds like a bad idea to me.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ALago1]

4. Perhaps I'm too much of a pragmatist...

My considerations as to who should drop out stemmed from polling data suggesting that some candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell to fare well either in important primary states, or nationally.

Does the benefit of leaving "idealists" such as DK, et al outweigh the cost of the time taken away from mainstream candidates and the diluted message that necessary ensues? Your opinion is just as good as mine I guess and my opinion is that it doesn't.

[Renew Deal]

6. Here is why you are right...

Does the benefit of leaving "idealists" such as DK, et al outweigh the cost of the time taken away from mainstream candidates and the diluted message that necessary ensues?

The top 6 are good candidates (well, not Lieberman but whatever). They have messages too. Their messages aren't far from the idealistic liberal. Let people concentrate on what matters.

[xJlM]

29. You're entitled to your opinion.

That doesn't make it right. We haven't even reached the first primary yet, and I think certain people should be allowed plenty of chance to destroy themselves with their own mouths. If you know what I mean.

[Nashyra]

11. 2 separate debates

great idea, I say leave in Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Sharpton and put CMB, DK, Gephart and Lieberman in another debate together. On another note and I know that I will piss off some other's here but I could care less if It's a DNC, DLC, ABC whatever wet dream I want a Dem front runner out there visible as soon as possible so that they can start concentrating on the *. This draft thing is getting some serious attention and just like others on these boards I have a draft age son, and he will not run from the draft as much as I would like to see him do so, and I am afraid that there will be no deferments for college in an attempt to make it look fair and balanced. We are going to have serious conflict about this issue, as much as I would love to have deferments to keep MY son in school what about draft age kids who can not afford school? There is never going to be a fair solution to the draft so we have to bring down the war monger in the WH. It's obvious who my choice is but like Sharpton said last night anyone on the stage is better than *, but who is the most electable. I'm sorry at this point in time my principles take a back seat to my sons life and the other young men and women in the armed forces. Once we are in the WH we can affect change and there are definetly candidates running are more poised to do that then others, I hope they thin themselves out for the good of the country.

[Renew Deal]

3. I agree.

Let's do it and be done with it. There are too many people up there; and too many with no chance. How much longer do we have to look at Kucinich's and CMB's 1%? I would like to put Sharpton in that group if possible though. He makes points that help everybody and doesn't attack anyone (I can't think of someone besides Dean).

[quispquake]

5. I like the fact that ideas are making the debates that wouldn't...

...if folks like Kucinich & Braun weren't there...I personally like the idea of a single payer health care system, which wouldn't even be broached if they were not in the debates...

Yes, the 'herd' may need to be thinned soon, but I don't mind if it's a another few months before more leave...

Just my perky opinion!
pp23

[Renew Deal]

7. I understand how you feel.

And that's what I struggle with when I answer it. I also like some of their ideas. And CMB's speaking style is very good.

[HootieMcBoob]

8. don't candidates usually stick it out until

at least after the first primary? My memory is foggy but I know that by the time New York gets around to its primary the field is much thinner than it is at the beginning. After New Hampshire and South Carolina or however it's set up the candidates who are at the bottom of the pack will start to drop out.

[Renew Deal]

13. Not really

The lower end thins out before and certainly before NH. NH leaves the top 3-4.

They don't go beyond super tuesday in my recent memory.

[greendog]

20. Jerry Brown?

Didn't Jerry start out towards the back of the pack in '92? Didn't he stay in the race till the end? Didn't he offer an alternative to the DLC's Bill Clinton? Didn't he eventually win several states?

Wouldn't it be better to keep progressives interested in the Democratic Party....or is it time for them to refocus toward the Green Party?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

10. hard to say

having a whole bunch of candidates up there makes it safer for each individual candidate up there. It also brings new perspectives in and allows for a pulpit to question the current Misadministration's policies.

it is not helping to elucidate individual strengths in the most likely candidates however. Also, now they are beginning to attack one another a lot more, which is not cool. They should all agree to become part of whoever is to be elected's cabinet. All except for Joe Lieberman, he should go and find a violent video game to ban or something.

[Ficus]

12. DK

better stay in. He's the only one bringing up certain important issues. I bet he'll be there until the convention, even if he has like 1 delagate. (Think Alan Keys and his 1 delagate to the Repub. Natl Convention in 2000.) DK is running to bring ideas to the table...IMO

Edited to say "certain" important issues - they all bring up issues.

[maha]

14. I think we have to wait until after New Hampshire.

After New Hampshire we should consider allowing only candidates who are getting 3-5 percent or more of the primary votes to appear in these debates, which should drop off two or three people. My concern is that if some candidates appear to have been driven out of the campaign by the Powers That Be, even if they don't have a chance, their supporters will want to pull a Nader and go third party.

[Nadienne]

23. I'm pretty sure Nader didn't know

that Bush was going to pull such a stunt... (Or series of stunts, and get away with it.)

And I think for many Dems, getting rid of Bush is more important than their candidate winning.

And that Nader made a dent in Gore's votes... I think it maybe says something about what voters wanted to hear. Of course, what voters want may have changed. Things moderately liberal are now extremely liberal, almost unheard of, while things extremely conservative are treated as only moderately conservative. Therefore, if it was Bush vs Gore vs Nader right now, there would be way fewer votes for Nader...

I, for one, like the variety, for now at least.

[bpilgrim]

15. it makes it even more dificult for the neoCONs to tell their story

:evilgrin:

peace

[ALago1]

17. It would be even harder if we had...

...very detailed, precise messages to offer.

[leftofthedial]

16. what a stupid idea

what a stupid idea

[ALago1]

18. Well...

...can't argue with that analysis. I'll go shoot myself now as I will never live up to your analytical prowess.

[leftofthedial]

24. you advocate taking the two most progressive

and articulate voices OUT of the campaign a YEAR before the election, before a single primary?

Stupid.

If you want to take someone out of the campaign, take out Edwards, Dean, or Kerry who are virtuallyindistinguidhable from one another. Or better yet, take out Gephardt or Lieberman, who are also virtually indistinguishable from one another.

Don't shoot yourself. Just go spank yourself.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Better idea

Have a series of debates on individual topics instead of trying to go all over the map.

How about one debate on health care, another on the economy, another on social issues, another on national security? That way, each candidate gets to elaborate their position in depth.

[bleedingheart]

21. Why not knock Edwards and Lieberman out and put in Kucinich?

At least leave someone in who is actually on message with the left wing of the party. Otherwise there won't be enough variety... hell I would like Sharpton to remain just to spice things up.

Personally I don't really care... the people will pick their nominee.

[ALago1]

22. There is a case to knock out both Edwards & Lieberman

At the national level, Joe still places fairly well. Edwards also seems to be doing well in South Carolina, which could serve as a case to have both stay. Other than these two instances, their showing has been mediocre at best.

I wouldn't mind interchanging either for DK

[amazona]

26. can't agree

I'm not ready to thin the pack to that extent. Good Lord, the longer Sharpton stays in the better. He has the fastest wit with a quip, and you need sound bites. The public at large doesn't care about in-depth debate in my humble opinion. Besides, if you get rid of the three most progressive candidates right off the bat, it sends a wrong message to your minority and progressive voters in my humble opinion.

[Ellen Forradalom]

27. Loose a cheetah on them

That'll thin the pack right quick.

[gottaB]

30. It's long past time

It should have started back in March when Dean was polling around 3%.

(Joke, people. For rhetorical effect.)

If we're talking national polls (and we better be if you don't want to mention D.C. or SC), then look at the data again. Sharpton has been outpolling Edwards lateley. In one poll he tied Gep and Kerry. In the latest Zogby Braun was tied with Gep ahead of Edwards, Sharpton and Kucinich. So how do you justify those divisions you proposed?

The opinion polls do not show that any six candidates are consistently grouped ahead of the other three. There is a lot of flux. Deal with it.