Why so many Democratic candidates?

[BobK]

With nine Democratic candidates running for the presidential nomination I have been wondering why some of them have thrown their hats into the ring.

The candidates listed in alphabetical order are...
Dean, Howard
Edwards, John
Gephardt, Dick
Graham, Bob
Kerry, John
Kucinich, Dennis
Lieberman, Joe
Mosely-Braun, Carol
Sharpton, Al

Can all of these people feel they have a legitimate chance to get the nomination?

I tend to think there must be other motives behind some of the candidates.

Some possibilities might be...

1. Democratic party suggested some candidates run, in order to air as many positions as possible to see what resonates with the voters. Thereby allowing the eventual candidate to limit the number of positions taken until positions taken by other candidates have proven their viability.

2. Hope to show sufficient strength to negotiate a future job or increase influence with the party or new administration.

3. Living off the campaign contributions while campaigning.

4. Maybe excess contributions to candidates are returned to candidate after end of campaign?

I don't know if any of the above reasons are logical. I'm just trying to understand the motivation involved and would appreciate any insights that might be available in this forum.

I really don't think they're all running because they think they're the best person for the job.

 

[c0rbin]

Does the word "floundering" mean anything to you?

 

[Tricky]

It's not really very surprising. There aren't any overwhelmingly strong Democratic candidates to scare others out of the race. After all, the last two Democratic candidates to win the presidency were both very much dark horses when the campaign began.

What is really interesting to me is that aside from Bush Sr., none of the past five presidents have had any federal experience. All but Bush I were governers. Being "tainted" by service in Washington seems to be the death blow, regardless of party. Can anyone even remember when a US congressman was elected to President?
(Okay, it was Johnson in 1964, but he was the incumbant).

 

[BobK]

My basic point being, I don't see Kucinich, Mosely-Braun or Sharpton as having any real possibility of being 1st or 2nd on the ticket.

It seems to me that any campaign contributions they receive would be better spent supporting one of the other candidates.

Sharpton has never held office, Mosely-Braun no longer holds office, and Kucinich appears to be so far out of the mainstream as to be unelectable, yet they're still candidates.

It couldn't just be ego, could it?

 

[corplinx]

Its the Bill Clinton factor. Clinton was from a state that easier to manage than most big cities. He was an unknown. Bill Clinton was even written off after an early primary defeat. Then, the momentum started to swing......

Bill Clinton showed what talent, charisma, and busting your ass can do. He became the comeback kid! He swept the primaries and then knocked out an incumbent president.

Perhaps these candidates feel like anyone could take the primaries with the right momentum. Perhaps Clinton taught the many underdogs that the underdog can win through hard work and dedication. You can agree or disagree with his policies, but Clinton was a master campaigner.

 

[Jedi Knight]

With nine Democratic candidates running for the presidential nomination I have been wondering why some of them have thrown their hats into the ring.

The candidates listed in alphabetical order are...
Dean, Howard
Edwards, John
Gephardt, Dick
Graham, Bob
Kerry, John
Kucinich, Dennis
Lieberman, Joe
Mosely-Braun, Carol
Sharpton, Al

Can all of these people feel they have a legitimate chance to get the nomination?

I tend to think there must be other motives behind some of the candidates.

Some possibilities might be...

1. Democratic party suggested some candidates run, in order to air as many positions as possible to see what resonates with the voters. Thereby allowing the eventual candidate to limit the number of positions taken until positions taken by other candidates have proven their viability.

2. Hope to show sufficient strength to negotiate a future job or increase influence with the party or new administration.

3. Living off the campaign contributions while campaigning.

4. Maybe excess contributions to candidates are returned to candidate after end of campaign?

I don't know if any of the above reasons are logical. I'm just trying to understand the motivation involved and would appreciate any insights that might be available in this forum.

I really don't think they're all running because they think they're the best person for the job.

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion because my genius could aid the left by discussing it, but what the hell lol. I will tell you what this all means.

First, the reason why there are nine candidiates is precisely because there is no solid Democratic Party leadership. There is no pivotal personality in the Democratic Party to reign in rogues like Al Sharpton.

Sharpton knows he won't be president, but he also knows that his agenda will be heard and possibly acted on if he pulls enough of the vote. Sharpton and the others learned from Nader and John McCain. You don't have to really win to 'win'. Running for president is the perfect time to get your message out nationally and if it turns into a popular message then the parties will be forced to act on it or risk angering the constituency.

This display of weak leadership is primarily the fault of President Clinton. President Clinton was such a powerful leader, charismatic and clever politically that he ran the Democratic Party. There is no democrat that can replace Clinton. When Clinton left office, it was like a General Officer leaving his infantry division on the battlefield alone. The democrats simply do not know what to do.

They have no campaign message so they just 'attack Bush'. That is reaction politics. That may make their party adherents feel good, but it doesn't do anything in reality for their campaigns. The left has no message. Nothing to motivate the party faithful behind them.

That is the critical part. If you do not have any issue to motivate people at the grass-roots, it is game over.

What the democrats need desperately is another Bill Clinton, but I do not see one. I see a party where the leadership has withdrawn because of constitutional limits and the 'privates' are now fighting each other over the positions left behind in the implosion that followed.

Don't think that Bill Clinton didn't notice this as well. He did. That is why he hinted that it would be a cool thing to get rid of term limits. I can feel for Clinton in that regard, watching his party unravel.

Now for the Jedi prediction.

I predict that Hillary Clinton will be the Vice Presidential nomination in 2004. Now I know Hillary announced that she has no intentions to run for President, and that is true, in my opinion.

That has nothing to do with someone asking her to run, and she will. She will go for the Vice President slot in 2004 and then the presidency in 2008.

As for some of the other candidates, they do nothing to advance the agenda of the Democratic Party. They are icons of the fragmented condition of the party and will only damage the Democratic Party's attempts to win the presidency in 2004, especially folks like Al Sharpton who will be a divider in the next election when the democrats need unity. Unlike Ralph Nader, Al Sharpton won't be censored in the leftist media because of claims of 'racism' and 'intolerance'. If only Nader was African American, lol. You will see what I mean in the coming months as the debates get going.

About eight months from now you will start to see that candidiate list narrow as some of the candidates drop out of the race for various reasons and moreso as the democrats try and get their act together for the next election and solidify party leadership.

JK

 

[michaellee]

What the democrats need desperately is another Bill Clinton, but I do not see one. I see a party where the leadership has withdrawn because of constitutional limits and the 'privates' are now fighting each other over the positions left behind in the implosion that followed.

Let us all go back in time to the year 1991, the month of August.
On August 15th, 1991, he resigned as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. He promised an announcement on a possible presidential race by Labor Day, but the final decision didn’t come until early October.

It is now only June 10th. Clinton was not considered even a minor contender until October/November of 1991.

I believe a similar "late bloomer" situation will occur late this year, and the 2004 Democratic candidate is not found among the list of nine noted on this thread.

Who could it be? A governor? I couldn't find 1 governor who has stated any intention to run. Looking through the list.....

Ted Kulongoski has an impressive political and judicial background but Oregon? And nobody could pronounce his name.

Ed Rendell from PA- was Chair of DNC for the 2000 election and his wife is an appelate court judge.

What about Bill Richardson?
15 years in Congress, US Ambassador to the U.N. and Secretary of Energy under Clinton, teacher at Harvard. He even negotiated with some guy named Hussein for the release of prisoners, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize 4 times.
Does he have any desire to run?
Sounds like the perfect candidate to me.

 

[aggle_rithm]

In 1991, there were relatively few Democratic candidates stepping up to the plate compared to, say, 1987. This was probably because, at that point, Bush seemed unbeatable as an incumbant.

This time, I think the Democrats have learned from history, and they are all vying to be the Clinton of 2004.

 

[aggle_rithm]

Re: Re: Why so many Democratic candidates?

Now for the Jedi prediction.

I predict that Hillary Clinton will be the Vice Presidential nomination in 2004. Now I know Hillary announced that she has no intentions to run for President, and that is true, in my opinion.

That has nothing to do with someone asking her to run, and she will. She will go for the Vice President slot in 2004 and then the presidency in 2008.

JK

Then she will rip off her mask and reveal herself to be a FEMBOT!!!

 

[Tricky]

Specific gravity?

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion because my genius could aid the left by discussing it, but what the hell lol. I will tell you what this all means.

For those of you unfamiliar with Jedi's genius, here it is, in his own words:

My density is genius

 

[Crossbow]

With nine Democratic candidates running for the presidential nomination I have been wondering why some of them have thrown their hats into the ring.

...

If you ask me (and you are), then I would say that it comes down to three things:

Money,
Money, and
Money.

By the way, did I say 'Money'? I really should have said 'MONEY! LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY!'

Anyway, having a large campaign fund helps in two real ways:

First, it does a great job of making the contenders in the opposing party quite nervous because it shows that you already have a great deal of support.

Second, it does a great job of showing your own party just how serious you are about the job (which really helps to thin out the intra-party rivalries).

Anyway, I expect that if any one of the Democrats had even half the fundraising skills of George W. Bush (who broke all the fundraising records in 2002), then there would only be two or three of them who would actually be in the running.

 

[Tmy]

Is 9 really that much? Back when Clinton first ran there seemed to be aot of candidates. The more the merrier if you ask me.

Plus the election is soooo far off. Theyll all drop like flies soon enough.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Re: Specific gravity?

For those of you unfamiliar with Jedi's genius, here it is, in his own words:

Hey Tricky, I am going to have some pictures taken of myself so my fans like you can get an autograph copy.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

What about Bill Richardson?
15 years in Congress, US Ambassador to the U.N. and Secretary of Energy under Clinton, teacher at Harvard. He even negotiated with some guy named Hussein for the release of prisoners, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize 4 times.
Does he have any desire to run?
Sounds like the perfect candidate to me.

I like Richardson because he has a pro-UFO position (he courts UFO/extraterrestial intelligence groups) and since the ruins on Mars were built by humans, I think he would be a good candidate to make sure we get up to Mars to check them out.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

In 1991, there were relatively few Democratic candidates stepping up to the plate compared to, say, 1987. This was probably because, at that point, Bush seemed unbeatable as an incumbant.

This time, I think the Democrats have learned from history, and they are all vying to be the Clinton of 2004.

No way. They are a fragmented political party, infighting and eating each other alive to see who will get the nod.

Hillary is the smart one. Her book was specifically written to distance herself from her husband. I don't have time to start quoting it, but read it if you get the chance to.

Hillary is also smart to sit back and wait to be asked to save the Democratic Party. Like Bill, she will come from out of nowhere, while claiming she has no "intention" to run in the interim. But the Democratic Party intends her to run.

Sharpton is after Jesse Jackson's job.

JK

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Specific gravity?

Hey Tricky, I am going to have some pictures taken of myself so my fans like you can get an autograph copy.

JK

Sure! Or perhaps you could just post your picture in the Pictures thread.

And I really am a fan of yours. You are the best thing to happen to liberals since Archie Bunker. Keep it up!

 

[corplinx]

I like Richardson because he has a pro-UFO position (he courts UFO/extraterrestial intelligence groups) and since the ruins on Mars were built by humans, I think he would be a good candidate to make sure we get up to Mars to check them out.

JK

There you go again.

 

[Gem]

No way. They are a fragmented political party, infighting and eating each other alive to see who will get the nod.

Hillary is the smart one. Her book was specifically written to distance herself from her husband. I don't have time to start quoting it, but read it if you get the chance to.

Hillary is also smart to sit back and wait to be asked to save the Democratic Party. Like Bill, she will come from out of nowhere, while claiming she has no "intention" to run in the interim. But the Democratic Party intends her to run.

I have to agree with you with Hillary JK. It's blatantly obvious she's going to run in 2008, or at the most 2012. The tactic is to "humble" oneself and "reluctantly" accept the proposition.

I shoud look into her public agenda, might be a good president.

Gem

 

[Crossbow]

Re: Re: Specific gravity?

Hey Tricky, I am going to have some pictures taken of myself so my fans like you can get an autograph copy.

JK

Yeah JK. You said something several months ago about how you did not want people to know your real name, where you live, or post your photo.

Have you reversed your earlier decision?

 

[Jedi Knight]

I have to agree with you with Hillary JK. It's blatantly obvious she's going to run in 2008, or at the most 2012. The tactic is to "humble" oneself and "reluctantly" accept the proposition.

I shoud look into her public agenda, might be a good president.

Gem

2008? Her book tour is the litmust test to run in 2004 as the VP candidate.

JK