Which Democratic candidate will drop out next?

Great Debates
1

Which Democratic presidential candidate will be the next to drop out of the race? And when?

(Bob Graham, of course, being the first one down.)

We’ve got 9 candidates and just a couple months until the primaries and caucuses start. Something’s gotta give, and it isn’t going to be the election calendar.

So: Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Moseley-Braun, and Sharpton.

Dean is in it for the duration, even if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s got the money and the media attention, and nothing better to do with his time. The other eight, though, are in flux.

I’m guessing that Kucinich, Moseley-Braun and Sharpton will stay in for a while. They may not be “viable” candidates, but they’ve also got little to lose by staying in. If one does drop out, I’d guess Moseley-Braun, who isn’t getting the alt-candidate buzz that Kucinich and Sharpton are.

But I think one of the other guys will blink first: specifically, Edwards, Gephardt or Lieberman. Lieberman’s not competing in Iowa, so he may wait until New Hampshire’s in to decide.

I imagine Gephardt will drop out if he loses Iowa – he’s got all his marbles on that square. But I think Edwards might go before that, especially if the polls aren’t kinder to his campaign. He can start lobbying for veep. So I predict Edwards, sometime shortly before Iowa caucuses.

Other thoughts? I’m looking for political predictions, not arguments about who should go. Of course, it’s Great Debates and politics, so we’ll see what we get.

2

I don’t get why people think Edwards is on the verge of dropping out. Last time I checked, he was still leading the polling in South Carolina (the first Southern primary).

This nation does not consist entirely of Iowa and New Hampshire.

My guess for the first dropout? A tie between Kerry and Lieberman if they lose big in their backyard state of New Hampshire (as they are predicted to do), closely followed by Gephardt if he loses Iowa (as he is predicted to do).

Edwards may fold, but it will be later in the campaign, and only after Clark proves he can beat Edwards in Southern primaries. If Edwards wins SC, that should give him a boost to stick around for a bit. If he loses there, he will be toast. (But that’s after Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt face their critical tests.)

3

If Lieberman reaches a conclusion he can’t break double digits in New Hampshire, he’s likely to throw in the towel. Why go thru another embarrassment after the Gore thing?

4

I don’t think Edwards is on the verge of dropping out. And, frankly, I’d rather he remained in the race than Lieberman, for one. I’m just guessing.

And while I know that there’s more to the country than Iowa and New Hampshire – hell, I don’t think it really matters to anyone but Gephardt if they win in IA – I assume that some of the nine are going to drop out after one or both of those races.

Good point about South Carolina, though. Now I’m thinking that it’s going to be Lieberman (is anyone excited by him?) or Kerry, depending on NH fallout.

5

I’m excited by Lieberman (jump frolic jump!)

Kerry will drop out if he doesn’t win or place in NH, his backyard. Next will be Gephardt.

6

I think it’s a little bit early to expect anyone else to take a dive. With the primary schedule as condensed as it is I’d imagine that any campaign still running now can afford to keep its chips on the table for another seven weeks to February 07, when the Michigan caucuses open.

After Feb. 07, every candidate will have some idea of where they stand in New England, the South, the Mid-Atlantic, the Midwest, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific Coast (anyone notice that Alaska doesn’t even have primary?). Scarcely a month later are the Super Tuesdays which will likely decide the matter for good.

That actually brings up an interesting low-percentage play. If, by some fluke which I cannot now imagine, the primaries are divided among three or four candidates by March 09, then those hind-runners who stayed in after February 07 suddenly have a rare shot at a convention nomination, because thirty or so of the largest states will have scattered their votes all over the place. Some back-burner schmo may want to keep a hand in the game simply to be there in case someone drops the ball at the convention.

I call this “The Sharpton Gambit.”

7

Sharpton and Braun are in it for the publicity, and will stay in for sometime while spending as little money as possible. If Kucinich were smart, he’d be the next guy to drop out. He doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell to get the nomination. Lieberman will probably be next (after Kucinich). As the VP candidate last time, he needs to be in #1 or #2 spot real soon, or he’s toast.

8

Gephardt will go if he loses in Iowa, which I think he will.

Pressure to drop out will mount to overwhelming levels on Kerry and Lieberman if they lose to both Dean and Clark in New Hampshire. Since Dean and Clark are the only ones gaining in the NH polls, that seems likely at this point.

Going into the February 3 primaries you’ll likely only have Dean, Clark and Edwards as major candidates. Edwards will stay in just so as not to drop out before his home region has cast its first votes, but he’ll probably throttle back the campaigning as the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party lines up behind Clark. Whoever wins in Arizona and Michigan (and South Carolina, if Edwards doesn’t) will have the momentum going into Super Tuesday, and likely emerge as the nominee. Edwards will likely drop out formally and finally after February 3.

Sharpton’s drop out date is uncertain. He could be pressured by DNC folks to drop out before February 3, and to support either Clark or Dean so as to give them decisive momentum in South Carolina, where Sharpton polls around 7 percent. He could stay in it for the duration, but that’s unlikely. He simply doesn’t have any money.

Braun faces the same conditions, only less prominently, because she has no electoral traction anywhere.

Kucinich stays in throughout. He’ll be the Democrats’ Alan Keyes this year, holding on even though he’s only collected a half dozen delegates.

Like everything in Democratic politics in the last few years, we’re seeing the emergence of a Gore camp versus Clinton camp split. Dean is now the clear Gore proxy. Clark appears to be usurping Lieberman, Edwards and Kerry’s hopes to be the leader of the Clinton camp.

Before Super Tuesday, this’ll all come down to Clark and Dean, with Kucinich tilting at his windmills and along for the ride. Either Clark or Dean can still win this, the other’s cannot. And sooner or later, that’ll either dawn on them or be told to them by a representative of Terry McAuliffe.

9

Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Clark.

Gephardt after Iowa, Kerry after NH. Then the other 3 go when Dean wins all the Febuary 3rd states.

10

I predict Lieberman will be the next to take his toys and go home.

What’s he thinking, anyway? He had his chance in 2000. He lost. Does he actually believe the Dems will give someone who has already lost once another shot when they are absolutely desperate to oust Dubya?

11

Gephardt is going to be the first to go. He’s got his candidacy staked on doing well in Iowa more than anyone else and he is likely going to lose in Iowa too.

Kerry will be next when he loses in New Hampshire.

Lieberman is strong in the South, even though he is a New Englander, becuase ideologically he’s closer to Southern Democrats than Northeast liberals. Then again, so are Edwards and Clark. The Southern primaries will likely winnow out at least one of those three.

12

Carol Moseley Braun will be the next to drop out. She is only running so her resume will read Former Presidential Candidate instead of Disgraced Former Senator. Dean and Sharpton will be in it for long haul. Sharpton is running to be Jesse Jackson’s succesor and the longer he stays in it the more it helps him. Kucinich will be in it as long as there is media attention be had. I think Gephardt stays in it through Michigan because he thinks he could win it because of his union contacts. I think Edwards drops out after South Carolina. Kerrey dropping out after NH would be too embarrassing so he will stay in it for a few weeks after that. Clark and Leiberman both want to stay in it long enough to be the Anti-Dean. Clark is better positioned to do this, so I think he lasts a little longer and is the last serious candidate to drop out.
My prediction: Moseley-Braun, Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, Leiberman, Kucinich, Clark, and finally Sharpton.

13

IMHO, it will be Lieberman. I think he was privately hoping for Gore’s support. Without it, he doesn’t really have much of a shot.

14

If Dean catches fire early (NH and Iowa), will the DEM power brokers encourage everyone to stay in the race to keep Dean from getting a majority of the delegates? That way, they could get together and basically PICK a candidate for the nomination!

It would be like old stchool, back room politics.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hillary Clinton get in there at that point.

Unlikely hypothetical: The day before South Carolina Primary Day (there are also a few other primaries that day), Bill Clinton gives an anti-endorsement to Howard Dean. He doesn’t endorse any of the others, but he gives a Bill speech on how Howard Dean will undo all the advances the DEMS made in the 90s and how Howard Dean will be McGovern to Bush’s Nixon.

Specifically, what if it is Bubba that says “a vote for Dean is a vote for Bush!”?

This won’t happen, but it would keep a lot of candidates in the race (and it is also the only real way I see Dean losing at this point- winning the most delegates, but losing on a second ballot).

15

I guess Mosley-Braun is out as soon as continuing to run becomes too expensive for her. IIRC, she got NOW’s endorsement, and at least some attention from all this, so whatever her future political plans are she may have gotten what she wanted out of this.

It’ll be too bad if Kucinich doesn’t stay in for at least long enough to get his issues addressed. I obviously won’t be voting for any of the Dems, but Kucinich’s support for a complete repeal of PATRIOT act and the fact that he’s the only candidate calling for reform of drug laws to shift to rehabilitation rather than imprisonment would be nice to see. As a libertarian, I theoretically should agree with Dems from time to time but most of them don’t ever have the guts to be liberals on the issues I’d want them to be liberals on. Kucinich does.

I agree that Sharpton is probably in this as long as he can stay in. To some extent, it would be nice to see the torch of black leadership passed to somebody whose main qualification isn’t “stood on Memphis balcony, watched man die.” But Sharpton is somewhat inflammatory, so I don’t know if the shift of focus and power from Jackson to him will help or hinder race relations in the long run. FWIW, Sharpton is much wittier and funnier, and seems like an amiable fellow when he isn’t preoccupied with a chip on his shoulder.

16

That’s a pretty bizarre prediction.

I grew up right on the border of Iowa, I’m pretty familiar with the people up there, and was back up that way just a couple weeks ago. Gephardt probably will win Iowa from what I can tell, and Kerry’s the only other one even bothering to run campaign ads. Iowa Democrats are rural farmers and union laborers, they are emphatically not Dean-type leftists. In fact, Iowa Democrats are almost textbook examples of Gephardt voters, I fail to see how he could lose that state. If you think he’ll lose, could you suggest who you think will win Iowa?

I suppose lily-white Howard Dean could win lily-white New Hampshire on the strength of his performance in lily-white Vermont, but as far as I can tell that race is still pretty open.

17

I really don’t think Gephardt has THAT great of a chance in Iowa. I’ve lived in Gephardt’s home state for twenty years now, and was born in Iowa, so I kinda feel like I know the area too. Gephardt just isn’t lighting any fires under people. As far as I can tell, he’s failed to make that great of an impression on us here in Missouri for as long as he’s served the state.

I do know that Dean is planning a big push for Iowa and that he’s starting to run lots of campaign ads there. Also, he has some big union endorsements, so if the union people are voting, he may have a better chance. I’m not saying I’m sure he’s going to win, but I don’t think his chances are as bad as RexDart says.

As to the OP, I really hope Lieberman isn’t next. I kinda feel sorry for him. I wouldn’t vote for him, but he seems like a “stand-up” kinda guy, and he didn’t deserve that backstab from Gore. We all know he probably can’t win, but who wants to see him back out with his head hung?

18

Those are all pretty bizzare predictions. Do you dissagree with the polls placing Dean 20 points ahead in Iowa and 40 in New Hampshire?

Do you base your predictions on any facts, or is it just a gut feeling and right wing publications?

19

Go easy now, I think he was just unaware of the polls.

Watsonwil brings up a good point. Sure, Gore’s endorsement is big, but what if the Clintons endorse a different candidate, or start attacking Dean?

I know the Clintons are popular with moderates, but liberals seemed to have no use for them except when they were under attack by Republicans. I’m not sure if it would hurt Dean much to have Clinton attack him. It might boost Clark or Edwards indirectly, but I can’t see Dean’s supporters moving away from him.

Dean is running just as much against Clinton as he is against Bush. Which is one reason I don’t think he is likely to win. How can you appeal to independents on such a platform?

20

They couldn’t do it at all. The powerbrokers already don’t care for Dean, but he’s making headway because of his success so far, and the Gore endorsement helps. Dean has also been endorsed by the SEIU and one other major union I can’t remember. Nominating conventions are just coronation ceremonies these days, not “old school, back room politics.” The Democrats can’t nominate one candidate when they know the people want someone else. That’d be suicide.

It’s already too late for Hillary to get in. She is loved by some Democrats, but hated by everyone else. She’s got almost no political experience (Senator for all of 3 years) and has promised to serve out this term. If she doesn’t, what credibility will she have with anyone?

Dean’s not THAT different from Bill, even if he’s not Bill’s candidate of choice. Check how he balanced the budget in Vermont. I think the Clintons have both said they won’t endorse anyone. And again, if the Clintons attempt to sink Dean when he’s on the cusp of victory, all they’ll do is sink the party. Crushing Dean wouldn’t elevate someone else, it would just leave the Democrats with no good candidates and absolutely no chance in '04. I know some conspiracy theorists think that’s probably part of the evil scheme to get Hillary into the White House in '04, but I don’t buy it.

He won’t say that because it would be a completely idiotic thing to say. And again, read the above. The Clintons can’t hand-pick a candidate. They carry weight within the party, to be sure, but if the primary voters want Dean and the Clintons don’t, will the Clintons be given their preference at the cost of the election? I doubt it.

Like I said, this doesn’t happen anymore. The system is more transparent now because, among other reasons, the people didn’t like the “smoky backroom deal” system. The people choose the candidate they like best and the party nominates that candidate. The Democrats would be unbelievably foolish to deviate from that system.