• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Should every candidate who's not in the top 3 or 4 after Iowa votes drop out?

Digital Gex

Member
Feb 20, 2019
243
191
275
The Iowa primary is less than 30 days away and we still have 400 candidates who have had a year to make their case and still haven't moved the needle. The only hope for most candidates, and Warren, is if they gain momentum after having a good showing in Iowa.

So I think it's a fair question to ask at this point, that when the results for Iowa release and the top 4 winners are revealed, would it not be fair to request all the other candidates drop out? At that point, any chances of catching up are evaporated like steamed milk, so I don't think that's an unreasonable view.

If there's a large gap between the top 3 and number 4 I would say only keep the top 3.

I posted this on the other site, the one with the cesspool, and was promptly banned immediately because something something diversity something something racist how could I possibly make such an unreasonable suggestion something something.

I think this is a logical and rational point of view, why waste time with nobodies when we know Iowa is the end of the road? I don't think that's a racist statement nor do I believe I'm being exclusionary, seems like common sense to me.
 

belmarduk

Gold Member
Nov 19, 2019
468
457
440
Yes.
I’d also say Buttigieg should drop out if he does not place first or second. Klobuchar should drop out too.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,427
5,180
485
Every candidate they’re running has said and done some shit that is going to make it very hard for them to win in the General. May as well whittle the field down and start trying to put lipstick on a few pigs.
 

SpartanN92

Gold Member
Sep 7, 2012
3,426
3,123
860
US
No because Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are all VERY different demographics and may have wildly different results.
They should at least wait until after Nevada if they have the campaign resources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe T.

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,308
9,235
910
I don't think that's a racist statement nor do I believe I'm being exclusionary, seems like common sense to me.
Why is this sentence even in this post?
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,953
3,642
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
Nah, that's way too soon. I can see why certain oversensitive people might view that as racist - they view almost everything as racist - but it's a laughable accusation on its surface. Letting Iowa singlehandedly choose the country's potential nominee would only make sense if every state in the country had similar demographics and interests and that's obviously not the case.

If someone wants to hang around after it's been made clear they have very little support by the public then let them embarrass themselves. If they hang around too long the media will probably turn on them the same way it turned on Sanders in 2016 for not dropping out sooner. They won't be doing themselves any favors.

Warren's the biggest spoiler in the race as I see it. Her supporters largely fall in line with the progressives supporting Sanders insofar as they aren't big fans of incremental gains that come from moderates, but she's got the "It's Her Turn" crowd on her side and they don't care about policy or authenticity so much as putting the first woman in the White House - they won't flock to him if/when Warren bows out.

Pete's looked strong in Iowa up until now, but he seems to have dropped significantly in what's considered "the gold standard" of polls there:

 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,087
2,679
495
Keep running, wasting all that DNC warchest $$$ that could be used in the general. 🇺🇸
 

Digital Gex

Member
Feb 20, 2019
243
191
275
Nah, that's way too soon. I can see why certain oversensitive people might view that as racist - they view almost everything as racist - but it's a laughable accusation on its surface. Letting Iowa singlehandedly choose the country's potential nominee would only make sense if every state in the country had similar demographics and interests and that's obviously not the case.

If someone wants to hang around after it's been made clear they have very little support by the public then let them embarrass themselves. If they hang around too long the media will probably turn on them the same way it turned on Sanders in 2016 for not dropping out sooner. They won't be doing themselves any favors.

Warren's the biggest spoiler in the race as I see it. Her supporters largely fall in line with the progressives supporting Sanders insofar as they aren't big fans of incremental gains that come from moderates, but she's got the "It's Her Turn" crowd on her side and they don't care about policy or authenticity so much as putting the first woman in the White House - they won't flock to him if/when Warren bows out.

Pete's looked strong in Iowa up until now, but he seems to have dropped significantly in what's considered "the gold standard" of polls there:
I don't think this post makes much sense.

All the front runners for all current major primary states are all the same people, and almost every other candidate has abysmal poll numbers. New Hampshire and SC aren't going to suddenly bring up Mike Bennett for example, he's done, and so is everyone else outside the top 4.

Your post only makes sense if this primary was more competitive and people outside the top 4 had enough support to siphon votes they don't. Almost all the major early primary states have the same 3 to 4 candidates fighting for first place and are placed way ahead of everyone else. So me saying they should drop out isn't making one state decide the nomination, especially since I said top 4 candidates not just one, but because it is actually the only way for any of them to get the momentum needed to climb from the bottom, so if they do poorly what other state is going to help them?
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,892
19,696
855
The media and DNC effectively will determine the candidate. I don't see how it matters who drops out, given nobody can name them all anyway.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,308
9,235
910
If you skim the OP without reading the whole thing you may get confused.,
I read it a few times and still don't understand what race or racism has to do with it.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,953
3,642
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
I don't think this post makes much sense.

All the front runners for all current major primary states are all the same people, and almost every other candidate has abysmal poll numbers. New Hampshire and SC aren't going to suddenly bring up Mike Bennett for example, he's done, and so is everyone else outside the top 4.

Your post only makes sense if this primary was more competitive and people outside the top 4 had enough support to siphon votes they don't. Almost all the major early primary states have the same 3 to 4 candidates fighting for first place and are placed way ahead of everyone else. So me saying they should drop out isn't making one state decide the nomination, especially since I said top 4 candidates not just one, but because it is actually the only way for any of them to get the momentum needed to climb from the bottom, so if they do poorly what other state is going to help them?
The kid glove approach is definitely a factor that's hurting the Dems, but they made that decision and now they'll have to deal with it.

Democrats have a history of selecting relative unknowns/longshots as their nominees, much more so than Republicans anyway. Bill Clinton got absolutely crushed in Iowa in '92 with less than 3% of the vote, lost the next three states and only won in one of the seven Super Tuesday states. He went on to become president. A lot has changed in those 28 years, but if a candidate has the will to carry on then they should be given the opportunity to continue making their case.

Who knows, maybe Klobuchar could become this year's Bill Clinton. Bernie took the gloves off against both Biden and Warren, hopefully there'll be more of that now that Iowa's around the corner and not whining about how he's hurting the party (seen MSNBC make that case today).
 
Oct 26, 2018
7,809
7,281
515
Got to give credit to Butt. At the beginning of the primaries in the summer, he was a nobody and like most candidates had maybe a couple %. Since then he's been slowly building and has made it to every debate.
 

Digital Gex

Member
Feb 20, 2019
243
191
275
I read it a few times and still don't understand what race or racism has to do with it.
I posted this on the other site, the one with the cesspool, and was promptly banned immediately because something something diversity something something racist
I was referring to the other place. They think me wanting all candidates to drop out outside of the top 4 is discriminatory.

The kid glove approach is definitely a factor that's hurting the Dems, but they made that decision and now they'll have to deal with it.

Democrats have a history of selecting relative unknowns/longshots as their nominees, much more so than Republicans anyway. Bill Clinton got absolutely crushed in Iowa in '92 with less than 3% of the vote, lost the next three states and only won in one of the seven Super Tuesday states. He went on to become president. A lot has changed in those 28 years, but if a candidate has the will to carry on then they should be given the opportunity to continue making their case.

Who knows, maybe Klobuchar could become this year's Bill Clinton. Bernie took the gloves off against both Biden and Warren, hopefully there'll be more of that now that Iowa's around the corner and not whining about how he's hurting the party (seen MSNBC make that case today).
But Bill Clinton was competitive. This field has candidates who haven't moved the needle for nearly a year, and in some cases are declining. The top 4 have been in their same positions for just as long, only change is them switching between each other.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,953
3,642
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
But Bill Clinton was competitive. This field has candidates who haven't moved the needle for nearly a year, and in some cases are declining. The top 4 have been in their same positions for just as long, only change is them switching between each other.
Well, Bill jumped in late, but I agree, if they're going to continue playing nice there's little point in the less popular candidates remaining in the race. They have to start taking more shots at each other or come up with far more compelling policy ideas/messages to distinguish themselves from the crowd. Trump did it early on and he built on that. In the Democratic field those that took Trump's approach got pushed aside, like Gabbard and Yang.
 

jason10mm

Member
Feb 3, 2009
1,310
252
945
Biden, Warren, and Sanders have no choice, this is likely the last primary they will be alive to see. The younger crowd are just jockeying for 2024 and 2030.

I kinda want Warren or sanders to take the primary just to be crushed in the general so we can put this whole socialist agenda to bed. A moderate Democrat is so clearly the obvious choice to heat trump to me, it is stunning that only biden (maybe amy klo....whatever) is making that play. Oh well, come 2024 we'll see. If the GOP can shake the religious overtones they should have no trouble locking it in for another 8 years.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
7,059
5,358
1,075
Probably so.

This last debate was supposed to be the big one and it was even hyped as much but only 7.8 million or so watched it. People were expecting everyone to cut each others throats and show they were the reason to vote for them. People also expected everyone to gut Biden at the start and then attack each other for the rest of the debate.

Instead everyone seemed like they had overdosed on medication, Biden wasn't the only one stumbling his words, and we had about 3 awkward moments with Warren, Bernie, and Steyer that had the crowd left in silence trying to comprehend what just happened.

Last debate Yang was the only super low polling candidate one and he did nothing but stay safe and push the same policies he had before not rebuking anyone elses ideas, not challenging others policies, not explaining how his policies would work. He may as well have not attended.