How many candidates should be permitted to debate after Feb 3rd?

[kentuck]

Should you be permitted to debate if you haven't won a state? Should you be permitted to debate if you haven't won a state, but you do have some delegates? At what point do we narrow the field down?

Kucinich and Sharpton will probably still be in the race, even if they don't win any delegates or states. There's a good chance that Edwards and Lieberman will drop out next Wednesday, especially if neither of them win a state. It is doubtful that Clark or Dean are going to drop out at this time. Surely Kerry is there 'til the end. Would future debates consist of Clark, Dean, and Kerry or will Kucinich and Sharpton be included? Should they be?

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Yes, please!!!!

The Illinois primary is not until March 16. It pisses me off that year after year, the nominee is decided before we can vote.

[mlawson]

5. March 16?? I would trade with you.

NC doesn't vote until May 4th, and the state Dems knew that Edwards would need the NC delegates early!! Why can't NC ever do anything right???? SC seems to manage to....

:argh:

[Jersey Devil]

27. I got both of you - NJ Primary isn't until June

It really rankles me that every single time our votes mean nothing because the nomination is all sewn up by then. Frankly I was hoping for a horse race so that it would mean something this time.

[lovedems]

6. I am right here with ya! I want to vote for MY candidate, not

the "chosen" one. March 16 seems like a long way away doesn't it? I hope they all hang in there!

[Tatiana]

16. greataunt, ya never know

This thing might still be up in the air by the time our primary rolls around. March is only little more than a month away.

[MrSlayer]

2. All of them that are in the running.

Everyone who stays in the race should be allowed in the debates. There is no question of this in my mind. Why cut out Kucinich and Sharpton? They have a very important voice in this election process. The things they say should definitely be heard.

[Skwmom]

29. I agree. e/o/m

[leyton]

3. Keep them all in

so that Sharpton can stay a part of this thing. Sharpton has offered a lot of insight into what is wrong with the current state of the things, generally in the areas of social values, and he says it so well. For example, I think it was in the Iowa or the NH debates that he said that the GOP defines "family values" as marriage issues and opposition to homosexual marriage, while ignoring the fact that for families to be stable, it helps for mom and dad to have a job. None of the other candidates ever stated anything like this; they rarely come close to matching Sharpton's ability to bluntly point out how crazy the country has become under the GOP.

[youngred]

4. All the candidates should be

why censor ourselves? It's not like Kucinich and Sharpton are going to get mentioned in the papers anyway

[iowapeacechief]

7. I'm still waiting for DJK's "little day in the sun"

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31741
Kucinich says slow, steady wins the race
By HOLLY RAMER
The Associated Press
1/16/2004

CONCORD -- The way Dennis Kucinich sees it, keeping his presidential campaign alive depends simply on staying alive himself.

"I will have exceeded the expectations of the media if on Jan. 27 I have a heartbeat," the Ohio congressman said Thursday when asked what threshold he has set for the New Hampshire primary.

During an interview with The Associated Press, Kucinich rose from his chair and stepped over an imaginary line on the floor to illustrate how he will surmount the low bar most of the national media has set for his candidacy.

"I can just kind of walk over it, and say, 'On to the next election,'" he said.

Stuck in single digits as the race tightens in Iowa and New Hampshire, Kucinich said his strategy is focused on slow, steady movement. He insists a nominee won't emerge before the Democratic convention in July and that by then, he'll have picked up enough delegates here and there to win.

"I'm not subject to the same laws of political physics that other campaigns are, where they have to maintain a momentum in order to keep going," he said. "My time hasn't come yet. Every candidate's had their little day in the sun, but I haven't been there yet. When I am, the whole dynamic will change in this election."
<...>

[tinanator]

8. uckin fay

you damn right Dennis! Im looking forward to that day, and your inauguration, I'll be there, I'll be there, I WILL be there!!!!!!!!!

[David Zephyr]

9. All.

They've come this far. No one should exclude them.

The debate has been healthy...and hurt Bush.

[pacifictiger]

10. to prematurely shut out

anyone before they are ready to voluntarily step down is downright undemocratic! Shame on anyone trying to silence voices!

[bowens43]

11. all of them , of course.

[ibegurpard]

12. All of the candidates who haven't dropped out and continue

to receive funding and support.

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. Naturally All Of Them.

Let's stop rushing folks...there's no clear candidate in my opinion.

[Samantha]

14. Listen to the voices singing in harmony and you can discern who's writing

their verse. Hasn't the so-called party elite done enough harm to this process without it continuing to shoot itself in its political foot?

Carville said right before The New Hampshire vote anyone who had not won a primary should withdraw after that. (He had a momentary lapse though because he temporarily forgot about Lieberman. Lieberman is "running a great campaign" according to Carville, he's a DLC'er and a longstanding friend of Bill Clinton.)

Begala clearly admitted some months ago he was a Kerry fan.

McAuliffe said after February 3 anyone who had not won a primary should withdraw. (Dean won the DC primary, but I imagine they don't count that one.)

Trying to force out Sharpton, Kucinich and perhaps even Edwards is a very bad public relations move. There's always the risk in alienating a current candidate by asking them to bow out, that same candidate might run on an Independent or Green Party ticket. There's an even bigger risk that such a move might permanently alienate that candidate's base of support. This would not be surprising to me if this happened because splintering the party seems to be a specialty of the New Dems, or DLC'ers. Personally, I prefer to see them try to specialize in winning elections.

[Johnyawl]

15. That's exactly what they're trying to do

Personally, I prefer to see them try to specialize in winning elections.

Since John Kennedy won in 1960, a Democrat has won the presidency just three times. Two of those wins were engineered by the DLC.

[knight_of_the_star]

18. You're off by one

Carter

[Johnyawl]

28. You're right!

I was thinking about Carter, it's LBJ that I forgot about. I can't believe I did that! lol

[mot78]

17. All of them

I want to see a quick nominee, but, at least until Super Tuesday, all of the candidates should be in the same debate.

[John_H]

19. This is a tough one.

I love Kucinich, get a kick out of sharpton's wit, and admire Dean's remarkable generosity to Joe Trippi and CMB. I also think it's probably fairest to have them all in the debate.

But practically speaking, debates are intended to help voters decide who will be our nominee. Neither Dean nor Sharpton nor Kucinich are going to be our party's nominee.

I think it would be most helpful to voters if the viable candidates stand in sharp contrast to one another, head to head.

Does this override fundamental fairness. I'm on the fence.

[MurikanDemocrat]

20. All of them

Unless they have dropped out, why wouldn't they be included in the debates?

[MMT]

21. Yes of course Kucinich and Sharpton should still be in!

It's not over til it's over. "There's mony a slip twixt the cup and the lip".

[kentuck]

22. I agree they should all be included in the debates...

As long as they are still in the race. However,I will bet that this will be one of the stories after next Tuesday.

[arewethereyet]

23. Winners only

and if that means there's only one guy so be it.

[PVnRT]

24. Unless they have officially dropped out

they should be allowed a spot in the debate.

[MercutioATC]

25. All of them. Why would you want to restrict the debate?

It's all about ideas, and every candidate has both a bunch of ideas and a bunch of people who want to hear them.

...it also makes it harder for the Repubs to select a single target...

[BattyDem]

26. So after two states ...

we should start banning candidates from debates? There are 48 states that haven't spoken yet. Why should they be cheated out of voting for the candidate of their choice because of two states? That means it's over then because Kerry is the only candidate who won any states. I guess the rest of the country can forget about voting - Iowa and New Hampshire have spoken! :eyes:

Even if we say a candidate should be banned after 13 states or 20 states or 30 states, it's still unfair to the remaining states. We don't narrow the field by "banning" legitimate candidates from the process. The field gets narrowed as the people vote. That's the way Democracy works.