Okay I wasn’t really politically active in 2000, but I remember at one point in the campaign in 2000 I saw a few debates between Gore and Bradley where it was just the two of them. However this year, it appears that Kucinich, Dean and Sharpton will never drop out. How did the situation last election come to a point where there were only two possible cantidates? Did the debate comittee just decide who the important ones were or did the other minor players drop out?
In 2000 I’m pretty sure Bradley and Gore were the only two Dem candidates all the way back to the beginning of the primaries. Gore was just whipping Bradley all over, so Bradley eventually dropped out, but it was only a two-horse race from day one.
This year is different, I think, because it’s taken so long for a clear favorite to emerge. As long as Clark and Edwards can keep coming in second or third consistently, with maybe a win here or there, they’ll hang around because they still have a chance to be the anti-Kerry. They each figure, I guess, that if they can just wait out the other guy they’ll have a chance to pick up steam.
Kucinich and Sharpton haven’t officially dropped out, but they don’t have much effect on anything one way or the other. Dean doesn’t look too long for this race. He has said that if he doesn’t win Wisconsin he’s done. By that time I think the race could be down to only two real contenders- Kucinich could still be in it because he’s not spending that much anyway, but nobody cares.
Actually, there was a third candidate in 2000 that got about 2% of the total primary votes – Lyndon LaRouche. He always runs and somehow raises quite a bit of money and quite a few total votes, although only a small percentage. He’s never included - his platform, well, shall we said, is a “little” bit out there.
I voted in Missouri last week, and in addition to finding LaRouche(according to finance reports he raised and spent $9 million last year), there was another person I had never heard of. I imagine in the individual states, you get a few candidates who are really obscure.
Ahhh, Lyndon LaRouche, that paragon of Democratic ideals. How could I forget? The first time I read your post, aahala, I read the second paragraph as “I voted for him in Missouri last week…” I apologize deeply for that, and beg your forgiveness.
Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Kucinich, Dean and Sharpton will stay in the race while they can still raise enough money to be credible candidates. Once their funding dries up (or Kerry clinches the Democratic nomination), it’s over for them 'til 2008. They can still run as independents after the convention, but probably won’t.
Robin
LOL. I haven’t noticed the local media reporting how many votes he got this time.
Lyndon ran a pretty strong 3nd(8%) in the Idaho Democratic primary last cycle. But he was doubled by a fellow named “none of the names above.”
Here’s a couple of other illumanaries from 2000. In WV, Angus Mcdonald pulled 7.5% of democratic voters and in Arizona a woman named Heather Harder got just over 1,000 votes, about 1.5% of the total.
In 2000, VP Al Gore’s decision to run made him the early frontrunner and certainly had some effect on others deciding whether or not to challenge him. (Though back in 1988, VP Bush did have Bob Dole, Pierre DuPont, Alexander Haig, Jack Kemp and Pat Robertson as challengers for that party’s nomination. Dole won the Iowa caucus, but I believe Bush won the rest, so its likely his opponents dropped out earlier.)
The Democratic party primary this time has been a bit volatile with the Dean surge, late Clark entry, Liebermann’s higher name recognition (which translated to higher polling numbers in the beginning of the campaign) and Kerry’s initial lead, then drop, now lead again.
But once a clear leader emerges, there’s little reason to stay and spend all that money, unless a candidate is running to send a message/play spoiler or they have a big ego and big bucks to waste. Al Sharpton may have wanted to play that part, but that’s now highly unlikely (discussed in this thread).
When a VP decides to run, as Gore did in 2000, there usually isn’t much competition. He has the advantage of many years of publicity, he knows he’ll get the incumbant President’s endorsement, and everyone in the party knows where he stands. This year, there is no incumbant Democrat President or VP to run, so you get tons of people milling around until the end.
I disagree that Dean will “never drop out.” He’s already said it’s over if he doesn’t win Wisconsin on the 17th, and I don’t think he’ll win it. Some are beginning to question if he’ll even make it that far. Kucinich and Sharpton don’t have the same problems Dean does because they’re not spending much money, and they don’t have a chance of competing with the big boys. Dean was doing that, and doesn’t want to hang around too long once it’s clear he to him he has no chance. The other two never had a shot, so they can hang around as long as they please. Kucinich will probably suggest that his 8% in Washington today is proof he’s on the rise - and it IS his best showing, but he still lost by about 40%. 