Candidates dropping like flies

Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the GOP presidential race yesterday. So did John Edwards, the Democrat. They join Fred Thompson and Dennis Kucinich. In searching for another possibility, I thought of Duncan Hunter, only to find out that HE has stopped running.

The choices are narrowing, and the most ideologically pure on both the right and the left are out of the running.

"https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

Bloody Ireland
"Ehrett claims these "conservative thinkers, at the moment, are advocating (in a vague sort of ..."

Will the New Critics of Liberal ..."
"So let me get this straight. You equate a pastor not wanting to perform a ..."

A Bill to Amend the Religious ..."
"Idiot liberals with the scorched-earth mentality."

A Bill to Amend the Religious ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • It seems to me that the media is generally incapable of covering any race besides a one-on-one. I think this fits the generally lazy style of reporting you see in which he said, she said, etc. So when I see any but the last two candidates dropping out, I wonder what made them drop out: that they were truly unpopular, or that the media’s inability to pay attention to them made them so.

    Edwards certainly fit into this role. He picked up a decent amount of support and delegates (in part due to the Democrats’ proportional system), but it seemed the media was ignoring him (there were polls within the past few weeks that failed to list him, even though much less popular candidates like Giuliani made the list). Or maybe they were ignoring him because he really wasn’t that popular. Hard to know. I similarly wonder about Huckabee. Haven’t heard almost anything about him since Iowa. Media? Or mediocrity?

  • It seems to me that the media is generally incapable of covering any race besides a one-on-one. I think this fits the generally lazy style of reporting you see in which he said, she said, etc. So when I see any but the last two candidates dropping out, I wonder what made them drop out: that they were truly unpopular, or that the media’s inability to pay attention to them made them so.

    Edwards certainly fit into this role. He picked up a decent amount of support and delegates (in part due to the Democrats’ proportional system), but it seemed the media was ignoring him (there were polls within the past few weeks that failed to list him, even though much less popular candidates like Giuliani made the list). Or maybe they were ignoring him because he really wasn’t that popular. Hard to know. I similarly wonder about Huckabee. Haven’t heard almost anything about him since Iowa. Media? Or mediocrity?

  • I would disagree on one count. Alan Keyes is still running as a Republican. He’s about as ideological as it gets.

  • I would disagree on one count. Alan Keyes is still running as a Republican. He’s about as ideological as it gets.

  • What exactly is “ideologically pure”?

  • What exactly is “ideologically pure”?

  • Ken

    Chris: Case in point for tODD–I for one wasn’t even aware Mr. Keyes is an active candidate for the Republican nomination. I heard a rumor he might be given the Constitution Party nod in April. But otherwise I haven’t heard anything about him from major media since his Illinois senate race loss to Obama.

  • Ken

    Chris: Case in point for tODD–I for one wasn’t even aware Mr. Keyes is an active candidate for the Republican nomination. I heard a rumor he might be given the Constitution Party nod in April. But otherwise I haven’t heard anything about him from major media since his Illinois senate race loss to Obama.

  • Ken: This is largely due to his exclusion from key debates and policies of local state republicans who offered inconsistent ballot rules for their primaries.

    see: http://www.alankeyes.com/

  • Ken: This is largely due to his exclusion from key debates and policies of local state republicans who offered inconsistent ballot rules for their primaries.

    see: http://www.alankeyes.com/

  • Schellenbach

    It does kind of depend on what that little phrase “ideologically pure” means.

    If it means “sincerely holding to what I, the voter, believe is a pure and right position,” then I can see your point.

    If, however, it means, “sincerely holding to his own position consistently and as a matter of principle,” Ron Paul fits the bill.

    Whether or not you agree with him on certain points (such as Iraq and the nature of our international role in general) is a different question than whether he holds to his own position in a consistent, non-cynical, and intelligently-articulated way.

  • Schellenbach

    It does kind of depend on what that little phrase “ideologically pure” means.

    If it means “sincerely holding to what I, the voter, believe is a pure and right position,” then I can see your point.

    If, however, it means, “sincerely holding to his own position consistently and as a matter of principle,” Ron Paul fits the bill.

    Whether or not you agree with him on certain points (such as Iraq and the nature of our international role in general) is a different question than whether he holds to his own position in a consistent, non-cynical, and intelligently-articulated way.