If they haven't been able to poll better than the margin of error by now, they're not going to. It has nothing to do with what """professionals""" want -- it has everything to do with what we, the voters, want. And we apparently do not want those poorly received, low polling candidates to be our nominee.

But if someone is still enamored with Williamson I am glad that she will be listed for that person to vote for her.

If they are that into a particular candidate.

narrow the field and get behind someone so we can beat Trump which is the most important thing in my lifetime.

he announced. It doesn't work that way.

I agree this is the most important election in my lifetime but I think we've had several stronger candidates than Biden. Unfortunately, this TV/poll method we've concocted has knocked some of them out prematurely.

Biden. I want the final three or four...to be on stage in the final debate...not someone who has no chance.

get a word in edgewise.

So, except for the Mayor, the winners were the ones with the highest profiles before the debates -- not necessarily those who would do best against Trump.

I never expected anything but a fair fight. If there are stronger candidates where are they? Apparently the voters disagree with you. Bring on your stronger candidates

It's the nature of primaries that some will pull ahead and some will drop out. That's what primaries are all anout.

this is all part of the necessary process to narrow the field. If the candidates can sell their platform proposals and gain the momentum they will make it, if not they won't. At some point it has to get down to one.

There are often primary candidates who drop out before the first primary, especially when there is a large number of candidates. They drop out for a variety of reasons, e.g. they discover that they sre not getting enough supporters to be worth sticking it out; they get csmpaign fatigue early; they say or do something they can't recover from politically; they run out of money and can't raise enough to stick it out, etc. That's politics. It is highly competitive. Some succeed. Some don't.

Only one can win in the end. The name of the game is to narrow the field to those with the strongest following and choose one of them.

that has narrowed the field.

Many of us wish the Booker were still there; I wish that Bullock had more of a chance but the qualifications were determined by number of donors and poll and these were driven by "revolutionary" ideas that got the attention of the "social media" crowd. I think that most voters would prefer a steady return to normal rather than revolution, but our voices get drowned.

I really don't know what the answer is but I think many feel that something is missing.

You seem to be looking for something that would be detrimental to the party as a whole -- a big field of candidates throughout the primaries.

But that would yield a plurality in results with no individual front runners and a division among party voters that would make it harder to get the support of everyone for one Dem candidate.in the general election. And that would give us 4 more years of the madman currently in the WH.

I've been following general elections and party conventions since 1964. I have seen candidates in the past that were more 'revolutionary' for their times than the ones we have.today.eg RFK. My parents saw the most revolutionary Dem candidate, FDR.

We have choices today among progressives and moderates. More candidates will drop out as time goes on. The remaining ones will be the ones who have gained the most followers. That's how it should be.

Yes, we are Democrat. We do not toe the line.. We like as many ideas as we can and, I accept, eventually we hurt ourselves.

And, yes, only two "revolutionary" but they were propelled to the top immediately. And shame on us that one of them is not even a Democrat and has no intention to be one, yes, with papers..

I wonder whether, had Booker and Harris not tried to start by jumping on the "revolutionary" wagon only to scale back, whether they may have still be around..

Just thinking aloud..

and would've like to have heard more from him, I wish he'd stayed in the race longer.

He sunk his own boat before it even launched.

I had actually forgotten about that..

without knowing how the place was run, but is still revered here.

Don't get me wrong. Without Pelosi we may not have had the great blue wave of 2018 and, of course, her master touch of the impeachment.

But if we are going to condemn the ones who wanted to put Pelosi to pasture, all should be.

and it won't...maybe if she was one of say two or three...there would be a chance. But it won't happen in a crowded field.

At this point we should be down to Biden, Bernie, Warren and Pete.

And not because I'm for Amy.

We should not have our choices to limited before the actual Voters start weighing in.
I was fascinated by the CNN debate watch panel. 10 of the 11 thought Klobuchar won, But 3 have now chosen Booker to caucus for.

and three months out from the diverse March primaries.

Warren and one supported Biden all along...time to get behind a candidate who can beat the fuck out of Trump and in the process...we will make sure that no candidate can wreck our convention. We need unity there.

your post is bang on.

I like Joe. A good guy. But really a member of the B team of his generation.

good one...he will be a great president...and ready on day one. I think your words about Joe are misplaced...and given he is the front runner ill advised if we want to win.

Well I like him and he will do a good job. I wont comment on what I think about his VP stint (since you think it is ill advised(, but will state that it is one of the reasons he is down my list.

One heat beat away should be considered in this race, too. And I'd rather it be Amy, or Buttigieg than warren.

have fallen by the way since they couldn't generate enough popular support or fundraising acumen to continue.

Under 6% should be out.

When the candidates are honorable like in 2008, it makes no difference because Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly supported Barack Obama with no reservations and did not try to promote her book or coddle her ego. She also did not call the primaries rigged and inflame her supporters to vote for McCain in spite.

One cannot always count on candidates to be as honorable. So, lickety-split primaries is the way to go.

be able to play delegate games at the convention...At this point any vote/delegate for Warren should be considered ammunition for a different candidate during the convention in an attempt to wrest the nomination from the winner to themselves. A brokered convention would be a disaster for us and give Trump for more years.

Supporters of one candidate are openly gloating about it. That candidate is not honorable and does not support Democrats anyway.

Or are you deciding who the "real" candidates are?