Even if Dean or Kerry or Clark et al. wins will it be a Phyrric victory?

[aldian159]

We're beating ourselves up, while Bush raises a million per fundraiser. What else can we do? Is it time for the minor candidates (I leave it to you to decide who's minor) to drop out and leave this primary season to 3-5 candidates who can actually win?

Phyrric victories, for those of you who may not know, refer to victories that leave the victor so drained/battered that they're actually loses. Comes from a general who won battles but lost tons of troops to do so, so he eventually lost.

Thanks, just a thought.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. No, it won't be.

To beat Bush at this point would be a blow to the republicans and would re-energize our party. And let's not forget the most important battle is for the Supreme Court at this point and having our guy pick and choose who will be appointed will be a major win.

[jeter]

2. I think the Dems are doing Dean a favor

He is playing it Dean cool. Not letting it get under his skin which is good.

He still has all the money. All the mojo. The best clear shot at winning the nom.

Think of it this way. Dean is the only candidate that can have this thing sewn up in Feb. with millions in the bank. If he wins Iowa, NH, and SC. It's over right there and then.

No one will give a shit about confederate flags and affirmative action comments taken out of context. He will have millions and can plan a good strategy against Bush.

By contrast, everyone else has to a) knock Dean out of the race; b) then compete against each other for the nomination.

Then they will be flat broke. Bush will have $millions in the bank and it will be all over.

Dean is the only reasonable choice.

[aldian159]

8. that's pure genius

i think im revoking my membership in the kerry club

[realFedUp]

3. I do think it's time for the minor candidates to get out

We've heard their soundbites and humor...now let's
get serious.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. Agreed....It's time for some of them to drop.

Lieberman, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, Edwards, Gephart, and Kucinich would be my choices to drop out at this point.

And don't give me any grief about Dennis. I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but I really don't see it happening for him this year.

[Semi_subversive]

12. I admit Kucinich is the most qualified

candidate. His heart and brain are in the right spot and he is the most qualified, but he's unelectable. Too geeky looking and far left, like me. Let's get together and oust this evil emeff!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VolcanoJen]

22. Well, Gephardt's not dropping out anytime soon.

In fact, after Iowa, look for him to become a punching bag, in my opinion. He's looking good, even though I'm not a big fan, and he's replaced Edwards as my personal pick for Dark Horse of the Race.

I adore all of our candidates, but those polling in single digits might be wise to drop out just after New Hampshire. I can't imagine anyone else dropping out before then, because, what's the point of announcing if you're not going to make it to a single primary (then again, ask Bob Graham)?

I'd love to see Carol and Al stay in, because they give the forums some much-deserved levity and diversity. It wouldn't break my heart if we lost Kucinich and Lieberman right after the early primaries, and if Edwards doesn't score big in South Carolina, he'd likely be next.

The debates will matter so much more, and, so many more people will be plugged into the Race for the White House, after the early primaries. The early forums are interesting, and we've learned a lot, but if we were to be honest with ourselves, not too many folks outside of our die-hard Dem loop are paying attention right now. That being said, I don't think it matters that the field remains big right now. It lets folks who are just tuning in know that we have a myriad of choices for them, a cafeteria line, if you will. It's exciting, it's early, and the field will thin itself, when the time comes.

I see it coming down to Dean, Clark, Kerry and Gephardt by the time the really big March primaries roll around. Damn, what a thrilling campaign season it's going to be!!!

[aquart]

4. When desperation makes you anti-democratic, stop. Just stop.

No, it is not time for the small candidates to drop out. They aren't in contention anyway. NOR is it time for any of the big ones to go.

THAT IS THE DECISION OF THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS IN THE PRIMARIES.

We do NOT want this decision made any other way. Especially since so much will be happening to Bush and because of him in the meanwhile.

Please, stop envying their mindless lockstep unity. It is destroying the entire nation.

[w13rd0]

7. Thank you...

...I know that the number of candidates makes the debate format difficult, but I will certainly not be championing anyone dropping out based upon polling samples of (usually) less than a thousand people. Whatever happened to counting all the votes? If the candidates have poor showings in primary and caucus states, they and their team can decide it's time to throw in the towel. Or they can decide on other factors, as Graham did. But it's their decision to make, a decision that hopefully they will share with their supporters and let them have their say in it as well.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. If the number of candidates start getting in the way of real debates...

...then I see that as a problem. There comes a point where clinging to a extremely small poll numbers among the candidates and it is just silly to continue to waste the precious little air time we get.

At the very least, Kucinich, Sharpton, Edwards, and Mosely-Braun should see the writing on the wall and do the race a favor by dropping out. That is not a slam on any of them, but there comes a time when a person much set aside one's personal goals and ambitions to make way for the greater good.

[RichM]

13. The ones you think should drop out are the ones I think should stay.

In fact, I think all the others should drop out "for the greater good."

[aldian159]

15. I don't want a repeat of 72

We gotta run someone who can beat Bush, not someone who appeals to the far left of the party. That's why i supported Kerry in the first place (and the health care plan. Got asthma and no insurance...)

[Liberal Veteran]

17. Pragmatically the people I list are the ones that consistently...

...have single digit poll numbers.

You can't argue with the facts of that.

We aren't going to win this thing by continuing to let the debates be sound bite festivals where we are dividing up a single hour among 9 candidates who get 30 seconds to 1 minute a piece to answer a question.

It silly.

And come now, at the very least you know Sharpton could go overseas and bring Hussein and Osama back in chains and parade them down mainstreet and forge a lasting peace between the Pals and Israelis and he still wouldn't win the election.

I am not knocking the any of the candidates on their ideas, just the fact that realistically they have yet to catch fire at all and it's a little under a year now until the election. Time to start separating the wheat from the chaff as it were.

[aldian159]

18. realistically, people

Sharpton has no chance, although if I were Pres he'd be my press secratary in a heartbeat. The man can think on his feet and he's pretty bright.

CMB has no chance. I'm from Chicago, although i was 8 when she won in 92. Sorry, people, America isn't ready for a black female president, and that's too damn bad.

DK is way too left. Plain and simple

JL is way too right. Plain and simple.

The other 5 could win, and if and when the four I mentioned drop out, then it'll get fun.

[aldian159]

10. it might not be democratic

but its really pragmatic to not kill yourselves instead of focusing on the real enemy, the BFEE

[Wwagsthedog]

5. Phyrros. A lady got him.

280 BCE-275 The Phyrric Wars:

Phyrros crossed to Italy to fight Rome in 280 BCE, on the invitation of the Italiote Greeks of Tarentum. At the battles of Heraclea and Asculum in 280 BCE and 279 BCE respectively, he won costly victories over the Roman armies that earned him the honor of becoming an adjective. Despite his successes, no real headway was made in Italy. When the opportunity beckoned in Sicily, he abandoned the Tarantines and led the Sicilian war effort against the Carthaginians. Total success continued to elude him, however, and in 275 BCE he returned to Italy. At Beneventum in 275 BCE, Phyrros was defeated by the Consul Manius Curius.

Phyrros returned to Epirus where he succeeded in driving Antigonus from his newly won Kingdom of Macedonia. The population of Macedonia was soon alienated by Phyrros's mercenary troops, and while campaigning in the Peloponnese in 272 BCE, he was killed in Argos during a street fight, felled by an accurately aimed tile from a woman's hand.

[aldian159]

9. wow, and I thought I knew Euro history...

n/t

[RichM]

14. "Pyrrhus," not "Phyrros."

http://www.who2.com/pyrrhus.html

[Isome]

19. We shouldn't be such wussies.

Ruminating on which candidates should drop out epitomizes that elitist thinking I hear about so frequently.

We have a large field. Big friggin' deal. The candidates and their supporters will just have to work that much harder to get their message out to the general public.

This thing people have with Kucinich is just sad. Most people are average looking. That's how Dennis looks, average. Big friggin' deal. Bush looks like a beak-lipped sonuvabitch to me, but plenty of people don't mind. Ari Fleischer looks like a sperm with legs; that didn't stop Bush from appointing him to a visible position. Why should we dismiss our own candidates, based not on what they stand for or their record, but because of how we think others will perceive him. Where are we... in high school?

We can either lead, follow, or get out of the way. Knocking our own party's candidates out of the running because of what the cool kids will think about his appearance is a sure sign that we've chosen the path of followers. If we wholeheartedly supported the candidate whose platform and ideals best matched our own, we'd be leaders. It doesn't seem that too many of my fellow Democrats want a leadership role, they'd prefer to impress the cool kids.

[aldian159]

20. forget apperance

I'm talking ideas. I couldn't care less what my president looks like, but I want a Dem to be sworn in in 2005, not Bush.

The way it is now, with soundbites dominating and no real time for issues, all people can go by is perception. If the hopeless candidates dropped out, more time would be devoted to issues, and the perceptions the candidates carry around would drop too.

[JohnKleeb]

21. Can I just thank you

Because you nailed it, we arent in high school. Stupid superficiality :(. You nailed it much thanks.

[Isome]

24. No thanks necessary! :-)

I like the way Kucinich looks! He looks genuine; I love his smile.

If all of the people who cry about his not having a chance because of how he looks would put as much energy into supporting him, campaigning for him, spreading his message, discussing his ideas, donating to, or raising funds for the campaign, as they do critiquing his looks, he'd be far more widely known to John & Jane Q. Public, and probably more accepted than people think.

Dismissing his candidacy because of his looks is akin to quitting a race, before you begin, because you don't have a sporty jogging suit on. Dismissing his candidacy because, though you believe in his platform, you're certain others will find him too far left, is the same as an inventor not trying to produce his invention, before finding out if there's anyone else who would use it.

Get tough people. And, as I'm fond of saying the last few days, it's past time that we grow a pair!

[JohnKleeb]

27. I really do appreciate it

He has the Slavic Irish look going :D lol thats what I am and German. I too am sick of people saying that. "I like Kucinich but hes unelectable" wouldnt you love to make him electable. I dunno man, its just that when people say this I am really bothered, I am not mad but more sad than anything. Giving in to something we dont know. I like your invention simlie, its great. This train of mind I think is truly pathenic to me personally, I dont hate people for doing it, but I do feel bad though. Its tough but its right.

[Isome]

29. Then we're very much alike... and very different too!

*lol* I'm the sensitive idealist; but most days I mask that sensitivity with lots of anger... lots of it! But, after the anger subsides, it just makes me sad that so many of us have chosen the path of least resistance.

I thought the '04 election would be about real change (Universal healthcare, national security w/out "pre-emptive" military aggression, steps to making world trade fair and truly free, instead) not change that's too small to be detected by the naked eye!

So it goes, like it goes, like the river that flows, and time keeps rolling on... (in case you didn't get that musical reference... I love that movie Norma Rae!)

[JohnKleeb]

32. I can be angry too

I hold it in though. I think we have much in common, give me a pm one of these days, I agree with you on much. We need real change I think. I am sick of war in a general sense honestly. I just wish people realized that idealism isnt bad and that we ought not to be superficial. I wont go green I think but I think I understand why people do, constantly told now isnt the time, when is it? christmas? next year? on my death bed? when, and I know nothing really, I support Kucinich because of his unique and admirable vision for America, his is one of the great heroes we learn about in school. We cant give up before its begun, and people who do that make me shed a tear.

[Liberal Veteran]

36. I admire the idealism...but my main overriding concern at this point...

...is getting rid of Bush above all else. If that means that I only get a candidate that represents 75% of my views instead of 90% of my views I will take the 75%.

I was asked back in May which democrat I liked by a republican friend of mine, and the first words out of my mouth were Dennis Kucinich, but I think that Dean has much better chance at getting the nomination.

Mosely-Braun and Sharpton would both be fine presidents too, but I don't think they have much of a chance either.

Out of all the candidates, Lieberman makes my stomach turn and I will have to get really drunk if I am forced to vote for him as president.

Clark is wild-card at this point. I am not sure I trust him entirely.

Gepdhart is too much of an insider for my tastes.

Edwards is charming as hell, but he hasn't managed to stand out for me.

Kerry is one of those candidates I just haven't managed to warm up to yet.

[JohnKleeb]

37. Yes I know

Sorry its just these last few years have really taught me much, Ive become more pacifistic, etc. Why do people act so superficial though? Its really a thorn to me. I hate to be an asshole man but you know its quite insulting. Some men ask why and I ask why not that basically is what I am all about, people say why and I say why not. Its disheartening to me. I am sorry if I acted like a jerk but its just seems like I see a lot of superficiality now of course not all are being superficial but I do see it and I dont like it.

[Liberal Veteran]

23. There comes a point where the field is so crowded....

...that it starts becoming a matter of name recognition. And the crowd is getting the way in of anyone standing ahead based on message.

Name recognition is the only damn thing keeping Lieberman polling well at this point. Clark and Dean have both managed to come from out of nowhere and become front runners for different reason. The others are simply dragging the rest behind.

And wouldn't it be a lot better if we call all pull together to our 3 or 4 candidate's messages out rather than splitting our power and energy amongst 9 candidates, 5 of which don't really stand a chance?

The longer we keep 9 candidates running, the more likely it is that we are going to have a hell of lot a work to do when this gets winnowed down to one candidate.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Sounds like purging to me dude

:shrug: I dont like the idea.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. Has nothing to do with purging....

But we have spent almost a year with most of the contenders and there are about 4 of them are polling consistently so poorly that they are nothing more than a drain since they really no longer have a chance.

I think those who are polling very very poorly at this point in the game (where we are at 1 year from the elections) aren't doing the party or themselves any favors by staying in the race. I'd like to see some of them start dropping and endorsing the stronger candidates who actually have a decent shot at winning.

[aldian159]

31. exactly veteran

Thanks for explaining my point better than I could.

Its become a farce.

[JohnKleeb]

34. We cant let the polls dicate everything

They all have a shot at winning. Look maybe purging wasnt the best word but it sounds like bs to me just to tell someone to drop out because of we feel they are dragging us down. Well I guess if we do that really, then there wont be a candiate I have as much passion for, I really like DK. Sorry if I offended but it sounds like a bs tactic to me.

[Fovea]

39. Why I feel it is not time to ask for a purge

Right now, the Rove-machine has to use a scatter gun against the Dem field. Further, we must realize that the debate has not reached the point where Democrats must decide.

The second we narrow it to a single front runner or two, we enter the final leg of the campaign. But Bush's foreign policy and economic policies are about to catch up with him. Jobs are still contracting in the new economic 'boom'. This is going to be an investors boom, pumping money into companies that make their product with off shore labor.
That is a recovery, like the government paying US Steel millions to buy an airline was a help to the domestic steel industry back in the 80's.

Iraq is blossoming into something that will make us remember the tet offensive with nostalgia as the good old days. America will be 80% opposed to this war by spring, at the rate the current quagmire is deepening.

The noose of criminal investigations is closing around Cheney slowly over energy. By the time we give Rove a single target, he will be really busy keeping himself out of jail.

Rove works hard as it is to keep Ashcroft from saying anything, but even with that, Ashcroft's excellent Fascism tour was a dismal failure. Very few are cheering the police state, particularly since the extraordinary failures of airport security in the last month.

I think we need to get Tommy Chong to make a few PSA's from behind bars. Welcome to Ashcroft's America. We need to keep the Pugs on the defensive. War, Scandal, Energy, Oppression, Class warfare... these are the hammer that is big enough to take chimpy down at the knees.

Right now, we have a small mob swinging hammers. And it is hurting Rove a lot. I think that a mob attack is a good idea at least until March.

By that time, most of their money and effort will be about keeping the media under control, and themselves out of jail.

[Isome]

26. I don't agree with that at all. n/t

[aldian159]

28. it sounds very bad, i know

but can we appeal to your aveage, centrist, independant voter with the field we have now? You and I know who the 9 are, America doesn't. If the bottom four dropped out after NH, the undecided voter would get the chance to see the top 5 more often. Then it becomes about issues, not looks or stigmas. Remember people, Bush is really charasmatic (It's how he got in charge in the first place). We need to be issue based. 9 candidates prevents that.

[Isome]

33. Can we...

Sure we can, if or when we decide to do that. It would be much easier if we stopped becoming reactionaries to the distortions of the right; that, more than anything, keeps us from getting out a strong, consistant message.

[aldian159]

35. how we doing that Isome, please explain.

n/t

[Isome]

38. How are we reactionaries to the distortions of the right?

I wish I had more time and energy to respond concisely, but I don't, so this is the best I can do for now:

• The rabid right starts saying that Democrats don't "support our troops", and the next thing you know, you look around and find Democrats bending over backwards to say that we do. We have all along. But, when the accusation is made that we don't, we fail to rebutt it with our history of looking out for active duty personnel and veterans alike. Instead, at the expense of reasonable dialogue about the Iraq invasion, we (our leadership) mindlessly parrot nationalistic slogans about standing behind our president. Were it not for the spineless stance some of our presidential candidates took immediately after Sept. 11th, they wouldn't now have to defend their decision to 1) endorse the Patriot Act (most say they didn't even read it) and, 2) vote to give Bush the right to plunder & pillage the planet on a whim (or according PNAC's blueprint for world domination).
  
  

  Here on DU, too many of us will insist the subject shouldn't be broached at all, lest the wingers use it against us. Accurate conclusions about the right of Iraqis to defend themselves from foreign invaders is misconstrued as "cheering on" the deaths of U.S. soldiers; IMO, that ridiculous leap of logic is a direct result of our susceptability to the wingers' accusations.

  
  
• It was during the Newt Gingrich era that the label liberal began to be used as a pejorative. Today, it's not hard to find those who don't really know what "progressive" means, yet they've taken to referring to themselves as such to avoid being associated with liberalism. In fact, many of the political labels thrown around by American politicos and politically-minded citizens are misused.
  
  
• The GOP are wholehearted supporters of socialist programs, like pensions and corporate welfare or bailouts. However, they refer to Democrats as socialists and we go running for cover from the label, instead of simply pointing out that it's more hypocrisy on their part. As a result, there is no shortage of Democrats who qualify their belief of a government social contract with denials of believing in socialism, and tough-love talk about the poor (or otherwise disadvantaged) needing to help themselves. It's unnecessary to reiterate what has always been a given. It only makes us look weak.

Time and again people refer to Al Sharpton as being quick-witted during a debate or interview. We should do more than offer empty praise. It would behoove each candidate and party member to sharpen their own wit, and have the courage of their convictions. That would serves us well when the simpletons we encounter daily begin to recite the litany of canards about the left, we can deftly sidestep those conversational ratholes and enlighten them with truth, and/or offer them a glimpse of higher-plane thinking.

The country, indeed the world, is filled with people looking for leadership. That's the reason for the legions of followers of organized religion. It's the reason some people go gaa-gaa over Chimpy. It's the reason people fall prey to cults. We have to lead, instead of being afraid of not being followed.

[aldian159]

40. thanks for the explaniation dude

n/t

[andym]

41. NO, the real danger is Bush's "reputation" and $200M

NO, the real danger is Bush's good "reputation" and $200M.

problem is that too many apolitcal people still see
Bush as honest. If his honesty can be at least placed
in dispute, any Dem candidate will have a chance.