How can you say that when less than 20% of the total delegates have been choosen? Do the voters of California, Texas, New York, and other states have no say at all? Or are you saying Democrats are sheep?
Delegates have been selected in every region of the country, and Kerry has won a majority of them. The others have no momentum, they have no money (aside from Dean).
Edwards can't even win in his home region. Neither can Clark.
Dean can't win anywhere, in most places he's not even finishing second.
At this point, those staying in the race are only diverting support and money away from the man who will be the nominee.
Well, Wes Clark is out. I really wish people could have looked at his platform a little more early on, John Kerry has basically adopted it since Iowa (with the exception on the stance of No Child Left Behind). Clark's biggest mistake was to not compete in Iowa. If he had done well in Iowa, his message would have resonated more with voters heading in to New Hampshire. Instead, Kerry got a huge bump in winning Iowa and at this point, won't be stopped barring some massive scandal.
I still feel that Edwards needs to drop out. He lost big in the South which was the only reason he was pushing people to vote for him. He tried to convince voters that "it wasn't President Bush's backyard, I can win here" and he failed, losing to someone from Massachusetts of all people. If you can't beat Kerry, how do you expect to beat George W. Bush? Also, the Edwards campaign has less money than the Clark campaign had. How is he going to compete in the Super Tuesday contests?
The Dean campaign skipped 7 primaries and caucuses a few weeks ago to focus on Washington and Michigan and still couldn't beat out John Kerry in those two states. They spent an unbelievable amount of money in a short period of time and it is partially that mismanagement that has cost his campaign so much. This time, in Wisconsin, if Dean does not win, he has to step aside. The email that was sent out said that he had to win in Wisconsin or it was over. Now Dean is taking that back. Dean can't even keep his superdelegates in line at this point, and he's losing endorsements.
Still, I can see why people are holding onto the belief that their candidate can win. I still wish Clark was in the race as I honestly believe he is our best shot to beat George W. Bush. Did people realize he was the most decorated officer since Eisenhower and held titles in most foreign countries? He would have been a great President.
Only a humiliating defeat from front-runner to also-ran, an abrasive style and a tin ear for political wisdom. His candidacy was the real victim of Iowa, he literally imploded after Kerry's win there.
He was the emergency stop-Dean candidate of the Clinton camp. If Kerry wins, he won't be able to run in four years. If Bush wins, the Clintons will have someone else to run in four years.
I don't see a future in politics for Clark, unless he were to go home to Arkansas and perhaps run for the Senate.
Clark would have done better if Dean had won Iowa . . .somehow the expected third placer taking first pushed the supposed CLark/Dean rivalry off of the map . . . then Kerry and Edwards started getting all of the media love-snuggles
How can you say that when less than 20% of the total delegates have been choosen? Do the voters of California, Texas, New York, and other states have no say at all? Or are you saying Democrats are sheep?
I'm saying that Kerry has won all of the primaries but one to date (I think) -- including a couple big ones he wasn't supposed to figure in -- and he has enough momentum (and consequently media coverage) that people will start changing their votes, even though they didn't originally want Kerry to win.
If you want to label that as "sheep", who am I to argue with you?
Kerry: Iowa, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, Washington
Dean: Washington D.C. (non binding, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt did not run as the party asked everyone to drop from the ballot, Dean refused, insert joke here about Dean the 'Washington outsider' only able to win in Washington)
Dean: Washington D.C. (non binding, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt did not run as the party asked everyone to drop from the ballot, Dean refused, insert joke here about Dean the 'Washington outsider' only able to win in Washington)
Could you please explain that one to me? Didn´t they want the candidates to run?
Washington D.C. had a non binding 'beauty contest' and the DNC asked all of the candidates to drop out of it as they wanted to preserve the status of Iowa and New Hampshire being the first states to vote (first caucus, first primary).
Howard Dean, for whatever reason, decided to not drop out of this vote, and I think that Al Sharpton decided not to drop out as well. All of the other major candidates did.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Oh dear god kill yourself.
Hahahahhaha
Originally posted by Existence
How can you say that when less than 20% of the total delegates have been choosen? Do the voters of California, Texas, New York, and other states have no say at all? Or are you saying Democrats are sheep?
Delegates have been selected in every region of the country, and Kerry has won a majority of them. The others have no momentum, they have no money (aside from Dean).
Edwards can't even win in his home region. Neither can Clark.
Dean can't win anywhere, in most places he's not even finishing second.
At this point, those staying in the race are only diverting support and money away from the man who will be the nominee.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
At this point, those staying in the race are only diverting support and money away from the man who will be the nominee.
Spending now helps the candidates flesh out their opinions. Inevitably, it brings more attention to the democrats overall.
I still feel that Edwards needs to drop out. He lost big in the South which was the only reason he was pushing people to vote for him. He tried to convince voters that "it wasn't President Bush's backyard, I can win here" and he failed, losing to someone from Massachusetts of all people. If you can't beat Kerry, how do you expect to beat George W. Bush? Also, the Edwards campaign has less money than the Clark campaign had. How is he going to compete in the Super Tuesday contests?
The Dean campaign skipped 7 primaries and caucuses a few weeks ago to focus on Washington and Michigan and still couldn't beat out John Kerry in those two states. They spent an unbelievable amount of money in a short period of time and it is partially that mismanagement that has cost his campaign so much. This time, in Wisconsin, if Dean does not win, he has to step aside. The email that was sent out said that he had to win in Wisconsin or it was over. Now Dean is taking that back. Dean can't even keep his superdelegates in line at this point, and he's losing endorsements.
Still, I can see why people are holding onto the belief that their candidate can win. I still wish Clark was in the race as I honestly believe he is our best shot to beat George W. Bush. Did people realize he was the most decorated officer since Eisenhower and held titles in most foreign countries? He would have been a great President.
Originally posted by Fran441
Did people realize he was the most decorated officer since Eisenhower and held titles in most foreign countries? He would have been a great President.
Is there anything material stopping him from running next time if Bush wins again?
Only a humiliating defeat from front-runner to also-ran, an abrasive style and a tin ear for political wisdom. His candidacy was the real victim of Iowa, he literally imploded after Kerry's win there.
He was the emergency stop-Dean candidate of the Clinton camp. If Kerry wins, he won't be able to run in four years. If Bush wins, the Clintons will have someone else to run in four years.
I don't see a future in politics for Clark, unless he were to go home to Arkansas and perhaps run for the Senate.
Kirk
Originally posted by Existence
How can you say that when less than 20% of the total delegates have been choosen? Do the voters of California, Texas, New York, and other states have no say at all? Or are you saying Democrats are sheep?
I'm saying that Kerry has won all of the primaries but one to date (I think) -- including a couple big ones he wasn't supposed to figure in -- and he has enough momentum (and consequently media coverage) that people will start changing their votes, even though they didn't originally want Kerry to win.
If you want to label that as "sheep", who am I to argue with you?
Edwards: South Carolina
Clark: Oklahoma.
Kerry: Iowa, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, Washington
Dean: Washington D.C. (non binding, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt did not run as the party asked everyone to drop from the ballot, Dean refused, insert joke here about Dean the 'Washington outsider' only able to win in Washington)
Originally posted by Fran441
Dean: Washington D.C. (non binding, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt did not run as the party asked everyone to drop from the ballot, Dean refused, insert joke here about Dean the 'Washington outsider' only able to win in Washington)
Could you please explain that one to me? Didn´t they want the candidates to run?
Howard Dean, for whatever reason, decided to not drop out of this vote, and I think that Al Sharpton decided not to drop out as well. All of the other major candidates did.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Is there anything material stopping him from running next time if Bush wins again?
A couple hundred million people saying "WTF is your platform?"
So what are they, Fran441?