If Clark declares candidacy, will anyone drop out of the race?

If not immediately, then which Dem will drop out and how soon? I figure Edwards to drop out first. I only saw a minute of his interview with Gerogre S. this morning. But it didn't look good at all from him.

I'm supporting Clark's entry into the race. But I do like Edwards as wells as Kucinich, Kerry and I sent support to Dean. Clark and Dean could really hammer Bush with a collective message where they agree. A real one-two punch fest even before the conventions!

:kick: :kick:

I don't think he has a shot at getting the nomination, let alone winning the White House. Besides, we need to keep that Senate seat.

He is #2 in SC, and he is #2 in funds (He would be number one, if Kerry wasn't using his senate money).

We keep hearing about NH and Iowa in the DU bubble, but there are FORTY EIGHT other states, and his strategy does not include NH or Iowa. While he needs to show 3rd or 4th, it really doesn't start for him until both those primaries/caucuses are over. And let me just say that at this point, McCain was at 2% or so in NH--and he won it.

No offense, but I get really sick of hearing that Edwards is going to drop out. He's not. He's said so. And he has no reason to do so. If he shows poorly in SC, OK, etc., then I think he'll see the writing on the wall and quit. Then he'll be able to concentrate on the senate seat (and he has met with Erskine Bowles, presumbably about just this issue). But until then, it's anybody's game--no matter how much some people think it's all set FIVE MONTHS before the first vote is cast.

You want to talk people who should drop out, how about someone like Lieberman, who is falling in all the polls (after he started out at the top) and his fundraising is below half the serious contenders.

impact the other races. If one candidate, lets say Dean, wins them, why wouldn't that give him enough momentum to give him a decent shot at winning SC? Is it too conservative?

and I've been to 2 of them. At least 3/4's of the atendees at every one of them either said that he had there vote and support, or that they will probably/or were leaning towards voting for him.

There is no doubt that he can get more votes than Gephardt and Lieberman to come in 3rd there

People are going to say, why can't the OTHER candidates stay for every question

Clark takes away votes from Kerry in NH, Dean in Iowa, and Edwards in South Carolina. The common denominator here is pro-war union Gephardt supporters, who wouldn't support the anti-war Clark in the primary in anycase.

Hence, Dean would win NH, knocking out Kerry, and Geppy would take Iowa and come in first or second in SC. Michigan has a lot of union voters and may go Gephardt, along with red-states like Oklahoma.

many of them will have to drop out of the race, regardless of whether or not Clark runs. I suspect most will stay in for as long as they can, probably until Iowa, but money will be a factor here. THe first couple of primaries will tell the tale then the field will thin out.

MzPip
:dem:

Before anyone flames, I'm not comparing them in terms of qualifications or ability. It's just that Schwarzenegger is failing - I think - because his campaign is such a patently obvious attempt to contrive a "new Reagan" for a state that is very different than it was when Reagan was elected, as governor or president. In other words, I don't think the problem is the message or the messenger but the audience. They just don't want the product that's being sold to them, no matter how well it's packaged. Of course, the media is still so infatuated with the "Governator" that they don't quite get this yet.

I think in a similiar way, the draft-Clark thing is a fairly contrived attempt to create a "Democratic Ike", because the Democrats are supposedly having so much trouble with defense/foreign policy issues. But he isn't Ike, and I don't see a market in the Democratic primaries for what he's offering that will make him a long-term frontrunner.

If you think of the Democratic party in terms of who comprises it, there isn't any one constituency that you can count on to be pro-Clark. Labor? Obviously there's a preference for Gephardt, but even if he drops out, I don't see why that vote and organizational bloc would go to Clark instead of Kerry, Dean or even Edwards. Minorities? Very up in the air in terms of who they'll support in this field, but again, I don't see Clark doing any better than the others. The Bradley/Tsongas/Brown bicoastal college student/yuppie set is pretty much completely locked up for Dean, even though Clark has a lot of 'Net support. Now, people expect Clark to do well in the South but I wouldn't bank on it. It's true that he's a Southerner, but he's not really identified with the South in the way that Carter or Clinton were and maybe Edwards will be this year. And the whole "South loves a hero" thing is really exaggerated, at least when applied to presidential politics. Being a hero didn't help John Glenn or Bob Kerrey or John McCain do anything in the South. Hell, even with Ike himself, the only states he lost were Southern. Of course, that was back in the Yellow Dog days.

Like Arnie in CA or Gary Hart reentering in '87 after the Rice fiasco, I think he'll get a bump and shoot to the top of the polls when he first announces and then fall back, because his surrogates don't seem to be offering a message for him beyond "Elect me, I'm electable."

His foreign policy expetise have been called on by Dean at least among the current candidates. The defense deficit is a real problem for the party that activists recognize and want to correct.

Clark will have to quickly show in the debates and in his campaign that he is more appealing than the Washington candidates. There is not much enthusiasm for anyone but Dean, and the I think the supporters of the other candidates can be convinced to switch. In previous elections there has been a strong establishment candidate to knock off. Clark enters an open field.

Activist posters on this board take him seriously. There would not be so many anti-Clark posts if he wasn't considered very viable.


http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/in_the_news.htm

yeah..I do see the "Democratic Ike" angle here, too. I think thats Clarks main appeal. Other than that I dont see how hes that different from Howard Dean.

Both Clark and Dean are pragmatic centerists (Dean governed that way and Clark is that way by virtue of his military career).

I think that is a wrong assumption. Just because he was a general does not mean that he is for wars. I think Gandhi fits most with Clark’s vision for stopping the conflicts that the Republicans started.

I think he like Gandhi would take a serious look at the principles of non-violence, and not as Dean has been doing seeing how much non-violence or pacifism can sell to get votes.

I think a new poll came out which said that crime is down to its lowest level in some 30 years but 70% of the people feel very unsafe living here.

I think most people know that the Republicans sponsored the Taliban and the 9/11 terrorist event, but they have no way of dealing with the ramifications of this fact. So they would be more comfortable voting for someone that has knowledge and wisdom about such complex matters as war and terrorism.

So I see Clark as a Gandhian Democrat.

I don't think anyone will drop out due to Clark entering the race. Someone will drop out after the first votes in Iowa--and that someone is...?????

the democratic party and the nation need to hear a vigorous and broad debate on the issues of the day. the primary and caucus voters get to decide who drops out.

No doubt Dean will drop out for the good of the Party. I think he knows that if he stays in it will just divide the swing voter in the long run and some of his own liberal causes.