To some extent the rate of the narrowing of the field will be determined by the powers that decide the format and cutoffs for debates round two and beyond. Continued ten a night over two nights is not tenable or conducive to viewership and engagement. Those not breaking into the second tier with Warren, Sanders, Harris, and Buttigieg are to some degree going to have to get culled from the herd so there can be more time for real back and forth between the fewer.
Harris and Warren in particular need that time to let their intellect and quickness be on display. I’d hope those under three are not invited for round two and dropping out follows from there. Keeping the whole field in beyond that is an unfair playing field advantaging Biden and to a lesser degree Sanders.
There are two tiers of D candidates; those who are serious about getting the nomination and those who are just aboard for a short ride. Considering how powerful the D’s odds are of recapturing the presidency next year, I’m interested to see how intensely they will vie for the nomination and hard they will go at it.
I’m not sure that’s the best split: I think Bullock, for one, had serious intent, but he’s going to be one of the first to stop riding. Buttigieg, meanwhile, I can’t imagine seriously expected to go anywhere, but he’s doing better than most.
Right, I should have phrased it as, “those who stand a serious chance of getting the nomination, and those who can only last for a short ride.” The truly-serious tier can’t be more than a few at most; Biden, Harris, Warren, and 1-2 others.
Steve Bullock could be the Jimmy Carter of this cycle. A Democratic governor of a state Republicans held in the last cycle. Can therefore share a message of bipartisanship while also having progressive credentials for issues such as healthcare, LGBT rights, environment.
No one has really heard of him outside the politically active bubble nationally so missing the debate next week will hurt him in introducing himself but he should not drop out. He has more reason to run than several others because he has executive experience outside of the progressive bubble. He could eat into the lane Biden occupies while others move left. And he has a record to point to.
My hope is that some time before Super Tuesday that it becomes obvious not just which candidates have a chance, but which ones actually have enthusiastic supporters and are not just coasting by because of the vote being split. One bad scenario that I envision would involve Sanders and Warren splitting their lane. Another would be Buttigieg and Harris splitting the more moderate voters who want an alternative to Biden. If those two things happen we could end up with a damaged Biden who ends up losing to Trump due to being perceived as being “more of the same” when people are wanting someone with new ideas.
Considering that the 2016 Republican field had the largest field of candidates ever until this election cycle, I think the best way to answer this question is to look at the timeline for 2016. (Not the perfect way, but the best way.) The Wikipedia page for the primaries lists exactly when each candidate dropped out.
Of the 17 who were considered major, 5 dropped out before any votes were cast. Another 7 dropped out in the first half of February. Super Tuesday wasn’t until March 1, so if the Democratic primaries follow the same trajectory, then the field will have already narrowed before Super Tuesday. My guess is that the point at which the field will significantly narrow is after Iowa and New Hampshire. I think many candidates’ campaign strategy is to do well in an early state, and then build upon that earlier success to win more states. If the candidate then fails to meet expectations in said earlier state, then he/she suspends his/her campaign.
Interesting! I remember Bush being the initial front-runner, with Walker and Rubio in the #2 and #3 spots, but I had thought that Trump was leading in polls by the summer. So I took to the Internet to find data to prove you wrong, only to discover that you were right and I was wrong. Now I’m wondering if what I was remembering was that Bush/Walker/Rubio didn’t stay on top of the polls for as long as Biden has. I don’t think most Republican candidates announced they were running as early in the year as most Democratic candidates have for this cycle.
I think there may be some dropouts this summer among those who either don’t get any traction in the debates or failed to qualify for them. Donors hate throwing good money after bad, when the money dries up it’ll be time to take down the tent and close up shop. By Labor Day, I expect to be down to a dozen, after Iowa maybe 8 and after New Hampshire, 3. I’ll be all over after Super Tuesday unless a certain white haired geezer decides he needs to keep his campaign fix going.
Which brings up a rules question: if a candidate suspends his campaign, do his pledged delegates still have to vote for him on the first ballot? If so, I can see a situation where someone might want to convince some of the lesser candidates to stay in for no other reason than to force a second ballot and hope the superdelegates swing in his favor.
You may also be remembering that Trump fairly quickly ascended to the top of the Iowa polling and while he had challengers for it, Carson briefly and then Cruz, he stayed near the at the top in those polls (with Cruz actually winning narrowly). RCP graph here. Iowa pays attention sooner. By mid-August Walker was in free fall and Bush never took off in the polls there despite his national (name recognition and pundit class based) lead. Rubio never polled great there but did come up near the end to get the number three spot.
Not sure whether to put this here or in the Hee Haw thread, but here are my current power rankings of the candidates in terms of candidate strength.
Joe Biden (easily the front runner - for now)
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren (not far behind #2)
Kamala Harris
Pete Buttigieg
Andrew Yang (well behind #s 4 and 5)
Cory Booker (virtual tie with Yang)
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Julian Castro
Jay Inslee
Beto O’Rourke
Bill de Blasio
Michael Bennet
Marianne Williamson
Tim Ryan
John Delaney
John Hickenlooper
Eric Swalwell
I am not ranking the 4 who didn’t make the debates. It’s possible that they’d be more competitive than some of the ones at the bottom of the list, but I figure you have to get on the debate stage to be even remotely taken seriously at this point. They didn’t meet that test.
I suspect that whoever’s in the bottom ten in late August has to seriously consider throwing in the towel.
I haven’t watched the debate yet, but a couple of people on my Facebook feed were whining about everyone ganging up on Beto. Any justification for this view? I’m finding some O’Rourke supporters to be…a tad excitable.
After failing to be noticed much last night, I’d hope that Ryan and Delaney at least would have the sense to call it quits after a few days to think it over.
I will completely concede that it’s probably crap methodology. I’m not a statistician, and I’m playing around with the live wires of polling and Google Trends data, hoping not to electrocute myself.
Anyway, that’s how I rank them. I’d be curious to know yours or others, but perhaps we could start a new thread for it - feel free.
Based on polling and Google Trends data over the last 2 weeks, yes. I’ll concede in advance that Google Trends may or may not say anything about the candidate, but what I assume is that if candidates with some Google searches are at least getting some interest. A candidate with low polling numbers and low Google search data…is essentially dead, which is why I have O’Rourke down at the bottom even though he polls higher than some candidates. Not only does he poll poorly, but it also seems that voters just don’t care much about his campaign. I suspect he’s barely noticed or taken seriously outside of Texas, and I wonder if he’s not just the beneficiary of voters’ disgust with Ted Cruz.
As I posted to RTFirefly, though, we might look back at my posts here and have a big laugh - I’ll concede that.
