Nobody should be surprised about candidates dropping out.

[MineralMan]

In a field of candidates this large, those who can't muster enough support, as indicated in the polls that seem to be taken every day, find it more and more difficult to raise money to continue their campaigning.

The bottom line is that polling provides some indication of how the public is feeling about the candidates. Those who are achieving some success are leading the list with higher percentages in the results. Those who have low percentages aren't doing well. Polls are a snapshot of public opinion. If you can't register well in them, you have to ask yourself why you should continue.

20+ people have put their names out as candidates. That's too many to last very long, really. Very quickly, we discovered who had captured the public's attention and gained support. But, we also saw who did not do so well.

We can expect to see additional candidates for the nomination to drop out of the race. Campaigning is costly, takes vast amounts of energy, requires a team of people to work on the effort, and generally is a very tough thing to do. If you don't do well, dropping out of the race lets you focus your attention elsewhere and plan for the future.

Kamala Harris looked at all of that and decided that there was no point in continuing. Meanwhile, she is still a US Senator, and has work in that capacity coming up shortly. She is talked about as part of the administration of whomever wins the nomination. She is just changing directions, rather than continuing a race she cannot win.

[redstatebluegirl]

1. My problem is that Iowa and New Hampshire seem to dictate who drops out.

They are lily white, middle of the road states that are not good indicators of how the rest of the country will vote. The polls show where these candidates are via those two states. The candidates have not made it to any other states to introduce themselves because they have to focus on those two states which makes no sense.

We need a super Tuesday as the first round of primaries.

[TCJ70]

2. I don't get the blame for Iowa and New Hampshire.

How did those states prevent anyone from donating to Harris' campaign? She qualified for the debate but didn't have the funds to continue.

[redstatebluegirl]

3. You have to have the polling to get the money.

If you have to spend all of your time in those two states forever the rest of the country doesn't get to know you. Unless you have the name recognition of Warren, Biden or Sanders.

[TCJ70]

6. But she did have the polling to qualify for the December debate.

She was reaching people. It just wasn't enough financially. That's not IA or NH's fault.

[MineralMan]

4. Not really. The national polls are the indicator.

Now, I don't like the current method that uses Iowa and NH as the lead-in to the primaries. But, there is a lot of national polling going on, and that is what candidates are looking at, primarily.

If you have just a few percentage points in the national polling, you are not going to be able to raise money. If you also have low poll results in the early states, your problems will be even greater.

Bottom line is that we have four candidates who are polling high enough to continue. The rest are toast. Once their funds run out, they, too, will be gone. Soon.

[redstatebluegirl]

9. I think if she could have gotten out of those two states to introduce herself she may have raised

more money and gotten higher numbers. Biden, Warren and Sanders have more name recognition, they don't really need to introduce themselves to voters. I love Biden and support him but I would have like to see her stay in the game a little longer.

[MineralMan]

12. She wasn't doing all that well in California, her home state, either.

Of course it's a problem to get your name out nationally. However, interest in the primaries means that you get coverage in the media, regardless. Most people know who Harris is now.

They're just not excited by her on a national scale. At this point, it's not name recognition as much as it is earlier.

Harris, and several others, are just not getting any momentum, despite the debates and despite their best efforts.

Too many candidates water down the campaign. That's why we don't have a dominating leader in national polling. Biden comes closest, actually, with about 30% preference in the polls. That's a substantial lead in a field this large. As candidates drop out, we'll get a clearer picture of who is really the leader for 2020.

Iowa and New Hampshire are not going to dictate who the nominee will be this year. Not a chance. Super Tuesday, which is going to be all the news before too long, will be when we know who the nominee will be. The delegate counts after March 3 are going to make that abundantly clear.

This thread is not about Harris, actually. It is about all the others down the list who have not been able to build much excitement.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. I agree that Iowa and New Hampshire are not accurate indicators

of a candidate's national popularity or viability, but winning there tends to give a candidate momentum that maybe they can't sustain. The problem with a national primary, though, is that it would be even more difficult for candidates to maintain a campaign in all of the states at the same time. I'm not sure what the solution is, but there should be a better way than this of managing primaries. Maybe South Carolina should go first?

[Firestorm49]

5. I have been undecided as to a nominee, but would have liked to see Harris in charge.

She’s a no-nonsense candidate with strong convictions - a fighter.

Hopefully, she will serve, if we’re lucky enough to have a fair election, in a position of influence in the next Democratic administration.

I know I’m in the minority, but I feel strongly about Warren and Booker as well.

Sorry for not posting this in the primaries page, but I’ve been undecided. I have believed from the start that Biden would get the nomination, but as the seasoned politician that he is, I believe that we need fresh strong arms in the fight.

Good luck to us all.

[TidalWave46]

7. I think I see what she did and I respect it.

She was in it to win it. She saw a hoot amount of support upfront and quickly built up structure. The growth didn’t continue and the structure she had in place was too large to maintain. How much can you cut back before you realize it’s over? Not much if you are smart.

[vsrazdem]

10. It was sad to see her drop out this early. I think she could have picked up some steam if she had

stayed in longer.

[snowybirdie]

11. Getting so very tired

of money being the driving factor in our presidential contests. I'm getting ten or twelve requests for money daily from various candidates. For the past eight or nine months! Why, as a interested citizen, are candidates trying to appeal to my good nature to give them money? I want to be involved but I cannot, and won't give my hard earned money to them. As a retiree, the $1,000 per month or so in SS and small pension will not allow me to donate to all the worthy petitioners. When will law makers realize that the system we have is untenable? Too many people chasing the few dollars available from we citizens. Tired of the badgering from candidates I like and support, tired of never ending commercials that enrich only the Media. Tired of a sad feeling that I simply cannot send my money to my candidates each and every day or week. Thanks for letting me rant. But my email box is full again.

[MineralMan]

13. Money will always be a major factor in our campaigns.

As long as campaigns are privately funded, money will rule. It's unlikely that is going to change any time soon, either.

However, watch the Bloomberg campaign. He can spend as much money as he wishes, out of his own pocket. You will soon see that money is not enough to move him up very far in the polls.

It's not ALL about money.

[Binkie The Clown]

14. We need ONE good candidate.

For that to happen, all the others must drop out eventually.

[MineralMan]

15. That's why we have primaries and a convention.

It will all sort itself out.

[cwydro]

16. Spot on.