Poll: Who drops out first?

Lately, I've been wondering just who the first top tier democratic presidential candidate to drop out of the race might be.  Obviously, if this comes sooner than later it would have an enormous impact on the remaining field.  

As such, it only seems reasonably to ask the fine people of kos land to participate in a quick poll about the matter.  Though the results will be purely unscientific, I must forge ahead if for no other reason than to satiate this curiosity.  Thank you in advance for your participation.

•  It all depends on.....

  who Gore deflates the most when he enters the race.

  by clarquistador on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:58:54 PM PDT

  •  Oh yeah one more thing.......

    hopefully it's Hillawee who drops out first!!!!!!

    by clarquistador on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:00:09 PM PDT

    •  Won't happen

      She's got the cash to go a long way, and when Bill won it, he was in it for the long haul.

      That is not to say that I know who it will be. I have no idea, other than to imagine they'll all be in it through Super Tuesday.

      by incertus on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:21:02 PM PDT

  •  Gore won't run.

    Just watched him on Charlie Rose. He still needs a rhetoric coach. He stepped on at least three of his own applause lines, because he has that Senator Disease, where they can't stop talking, and run everything together until they are stopped.

    And his presentation for "Assault on Reason" wasn't, bless him, logical.

    He kept talking about how we have to make Americans feel good, and then talking about things that we have to do that will make us feel bad.

    I started out hoping he would run, and ended up hoping he wouldn't.

    One thing I believe, that he said several times "I'm not very good at politics."

    by ormondotvos on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:47:19 PM PDT

    •  Couldn't agree more...

      I have said the same several times but consistently get accosted by the DraftGore police. Those are the exact reasons I hope he stays out.

      by Ocean Stater on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:44:08 AM PDT

•  Tip Jar

  For if you're the type that likes poll-takin'

  by nsaneone on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:59:17 PM PDT

•  Why did you restrict it to top tier?

  I would assume that barring some major and probably unforeseeable event, they'll all be in through the early primaries until a nominee becomes clear.  In which case, what you're effectively asking is "who will fail to meet expectations in IA, NV, and NH?"  And that's particularly unknowable this far out.

  A more interesting question, IMO of course, is who of the whole field will drop out first (bearing in mind that first is already second or lower, since Vilsack was in and then got out, and Bayh decided not to file, and so on).  

  by MissLaura on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:11:16 PM PDT

  •  The more interesting question

    I agree. Speculation on who is the next to drop from among the officially announced candidates could be amusing and doesn't necessarily depend on waiting for primary season.

    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:15:57 PM PDT

  •  Biden

    Oops, my staff missed the "It's OK for presidential candidates to vote no on the supplemental" Memo.

    Will you have strawberry or raspberry jam on your TOAST?

    by Ralph on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:17:31 PM PDT

  •  I like this question

    I came into this diary hoping to vote for Biden, but I was kinda shocked by the actual poll.  I just voted for Hillary because she was there.
    I just hope it's not Edwards.

    by unterhausen on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:28:11 PM PDT

•  I voted, but I think it may go on for a while.

  All three have a shitload of money.  Edwards has a pretty good lead in Iowa that I don't see him losing, but that wouldn't necessarily lock it up for him.  He'd have a good chance in the later states, but with Hillary and Barack's money and strengths, they could all battle it out for quite a while.  Of course, whoever comes out the strongest after Feb. 5th will probably see their opponents drop out.  Then again, those states (or delegates) could still be split pretty evenly, and it could go longer.  Unless Edwards loses Iowa, I can't imagine any of them dropping out quickly.

  by cjallen on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:11:34 PM PDT

•  Impossible to say

  None of them (barring the unforeseeable) is going to drop out before the primaries reach a decision. They all have funding enough to carry the race on.

  If there was ever such a thing as a normal Presidential election cycle, this ain't it. There's a lot going on in the world and lot is going to happen in the next 7 or 8 months. So, views from today's perspective aren't worth much.

  by Demi Moaned on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:13:14 PM PDT

•  With tons of money...

  and a lead in the first three primary/caucus states, what makes people think Edwards is out first?

  I'm a Barackophile, but I think Hillary has two things that can keep her in.  Money and Superdelegates.  Bill may have pushed as hard as he can on superdelegates, I don't know.

  One thing people need to understand about Hillary is that she is not liked out West and is likely not to win a single state between the Mississippi and the Pacific Coast.  It's pretty difficult to envision her putting together a coalition of states to win without some of those states and I doubt seriously that she can.  Maybe Minnesota (and that actually straddles the Mississippi).

  Can she win Florida?  She would almost certainly have to win Florida and Ohio and would have no margin for error.

  by Ralph on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:15:20 PM PDT

  •  Superdelegates.

    According to a diary at Blue Hampshire (which has the link to the original article but I'm being lazy), Hillary has 37 superdelegates to Obama's 22 and Edwards' 15.  So far.

    by MissLaura on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:20:53 PM PDT

    •  Great link, great site...

      ...but take what you hear about superdelegates with a grain of salt.

      AP: Unfortunately for the presidential hopefuls, superdelegates can be fair-weather allies who aren't formally bound to any particular candidate and can shift their loyalties at will.

      I saw a documentary called Chisolm '72 and even though her entire campaign was based on getting a small number of delegates so that her constiuents would have a voice  at the convention Shirley Chisolm still lost delegates for the sake of 'unity' at the convention - even though it was clear McGovern was getting the nomination with our without the Chisolm delegates.

      Unless it's a brokered convention almost all the superdelegates will recommit to the winner in order to jockey for favor in the next administration.

      by joejoejoe on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:40:26 PM PDT

•  This is an impossible question.

  Edwards leads in Iowa, Clinton is the proclaimed "frontrunner," and Obama is the new face. While Clinton leads nationally, Obama is hot on her heels, and Edwards leads in the first primary state.

  In other words, it's a stalemate. If you had offered up Richardson, I'd have picked him - not to say that he can't make a comeback.

  by Reagan Smash on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:15:54 PM PDT

  •  How about this impossible question?

    It comes down to April.  Edwards and all the second tier candidates are out.  It's Obama vs. Hillary in the Illinois primary.

    Who's out?

    by Ralph on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:19:27 PM PDT

•  Edwards

  Edwards may well have the best chance to win AND be the most likely to drop out first. If Edwards wins Iowa and Nevada he might get a winner's boost and run the table. If he loses Iowa he might have the least staying power.

  To win I think Edwards needs to win Iowa. If he doesn't his support will be limited and he'll be gone Feb. 6th. Obama can win with second place finishes in IA, NV and a win in NH so he'll be in for awhile. Clinton could lose all the early states and win Florida on Jan. 29th without campaigning and still be ahead by the delegate count so she's in it until she's eliminated at the convention.

  by joejoejoe on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:24:17 PM PDT

•  Obama - he doesn't actually know what he's doing

  and he's up against two experienced candidates. Not only is he gaffe prone, he has the most problematic supporters who are far more likely to behave badly in his name that either Hillary or Edwards supporters. He's already established that he won't apologize for outrageous and inappropriate behavior on the part of his supporters and a few of them will go too far.

  Lastly, he's making the same mistake that Gore did - he thinks other Dem candidates get treated badly because they're done something to provoke it. He doesn't yet know that the Wurlitzer can turn against him. And he's gonna blow it when they do because he can't maintain his public presentation and fight back.

  by lorelynn on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:28:50 PM PDT

  •  Absurd

    Which supporters are you talking about that he won't apologize for? Geffen? Give me a break. Gaffe prone? Certainly no more than any other candidate. What is your factual basis for that entire last paragraph?

    by turneresq on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:32:53 PM PDT

    •  There are no facts...

      This woman writes lies about Obama with a straight face and has nothing to back it up. Her hatred for Obama is borderline racist.

      by LV Pol Girl on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:42:59 PM PDT

      •  Racist? Criticizing Obama for being a

        lame candidate is racist?

        How is that?

        And please, document your charge I lie. I want specific, verbatim quotes that are indisputably non-factual.

        Go ahead, either prove your case or mine. If you can't produce lies or racist statements, then you're simply being the kind of lying, ignorant supporter I'm basically talking about.

        by lorelynn on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:50:02 PM PDT

    •  Obviously, the 1984 parody which he didn't have

      the integrity to back away from. Even I didn't suggest he apologize. But what he should have said was that it was inappropriate and he didn't appreciate it going out with his name. His fundmental lack of integrity showed up quite clearly there. Anything goes apparently on behalf of Obama getting  the WH.

      And yes, he's the most gaffe prone candidate in the punch - from his idiotic suggestion that the Senate give Bush a blank check (thanks, Obama, that was helpful) to his answer about terrorism - he's gaffe prine. He dodn't know the territory yet. And he doesn't know the know the territory because he has never had to run a contested campaign for a coveted national seat.

      by lorelynn on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:46:44 PM PDT

      •  LOL - Oh wait a minute, i did talk about

        apologizing. Let me be clear, he didn't need to apologize but he should have backed away from it. I think he gave tacit permission to goons to level all sorts of accusations and engage in lots of deceptive behavior on his behalf. You're getting a sample of what I'm talking about with LV Pol Girl.

        by lorelynn on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:02:02 AM PDT

        •  Does Obama have to apologize

          for every stupid (IMHO) youtube video someone makes about him?  If he is truly presidential why should he care about a jokey video someone made?

          by reef the dog on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:36:18 AM PDT

          •  I just said no, but to further what I

            was saying, when something that offensive gains national attention and he doesn't back away from it, he's giving tacit permission.

            He very simply should have said - this is inappropriate and I don't want my supporters slandering other Democratic candidates in a way that can be used against them to the detriment of the Democratic party.

            I'm cynical. I think Obama knows he's empowering goons and thugs. He thinks he can control them. Everyone who has made that assumption has proved to be wrong - and Obama is no different.

            by lorelynn on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:01:16 AM PDT

  •  Gaffes?

    Funny, Obama would not have been among the 3 I selected as gaffe-prone.

    by MissLaura on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:41:32 AM PDT

    •  Then you aren't paying attention.

      He's always backing away from stuff he says - he doesn't know what he's doing yet. That's the danger in running a campaign of this sort when you hav never faced a funded and genuinely supported GOP candidate for a coveted federal office. Keyes is a mentally ill carpet bagger who was a joke from the word go. And Ryan dropped out because of personal information that was revealed.

      by lorelynn on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:05:43 AM PDT

      •  That's right, I don't pay enough attention

        to the horserace stuff.

        I share your concern, actually, that Obama hasn't been tested in a full campaign.  But I don't think he's yet making gaffes - in fact, I was at a press availability he did yesterday and I was very impressed by how he handled it.

        by MissLaura on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:54:57 AM PDT

•  You seriously think Hillary would first?

  Yeah, and you're going to join the candidates in the debates and finish 3rd in the primaries too.

  Get real guys.  This poll wasn't voting for what you want, it's voting as a realist.  

  I voted Edwards because he has less money and support than either candidate.  I'm not closing the door on Obama possibly going out first, but def not Hilldawg.

  by Romaniac on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:55:42 AM PDT

•  If someone (Gore) were to sweep

  SuperDuper Tuesday, you could see all three drop out on the same day.  My guess is that Edwards will be hurt most by a Gore candidacy, so I voted for him, but my guess is all three.  On the other hand, SDT could be a two, three, four or  more way wash, and if that's the case, who knows?

  by rjones2818 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:36:08 AM PDT

•  dunno

  Don't care.

  by pine on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:32:33 AM PDT

•  Interesting results so far

  At this point, 46% of folks here expect Edwards to drop out first, even though he has led in most of the polls around here.

  Wonder what that says about us?

  by CCSDem on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:40:40 AM PDT

  •  It says

    our hearts go one way and our heads go another. Sadly.

    by bwintx on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:59:53 AM PDT

•  Edwards

  From where we stand now, I would say Edwards will drop out first.  He will have to win Iowa by a very generous margin to gain the momentum needed to sustain his candidacy.

  I feel badly for Edwards - really I do.  I have been one of his harshest critics without getting personal. I just don't know who is engineering his campaign but some strategic errors were made and I can't think of any other reason that he is not moving in the polls.  

  Certain folks like to remind me that Hillary can't win because nobody likes her.  The reality might be that Edwards is the one with the likeability issue. I don't believe he will be our nominee, unless something very earth-shattering happens to Hillary.

  by Andrew40 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:51:37 AM PDT

•  Who will drop out first?

  Whoever hires Bob Shrum as an adviser.  And whoever does will automatically lose my vote.

  by tcdup on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:07:18 AM PDT

•  I was ready to gleefully offer up Biden

  Of the three you list, I'd say Hillary.

  by Lefty the playwright on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:19:21 AM PDT

•  This poll is impossible....

  to be accurate with, and it's purely speculative. The bottom line is if Edwards wins Iowa he will not be the first to drop out. Tell me what state Obama will win coming off losses in all four of the first states. The answer is none. So since everyone is giving their opinion, Obama to me will be graciously gone first and with support from the Obamaniacs, Edwards gain the momentum he needs.

  Those who criticize the Edwards campaign staff truly have no knowledge of the experienced staff he possesses. Poll numbers mean nothing at this point. Nothing. He wins Iowa, we will see if polls from May 2007 matter. (see: Kerry, John 2004)

  by Ocean Stater on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:24:52 AM PDT

  •  My instinct is that you're right.

    I think Obama will go first. And if he has any common sense whatsoever, he will endorse Edwards immediately to get on his ticket and stop Hillary.

    by cosbo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:56:13 AM PDT

•  Let it be biden..

  Let it be biden..

  by bayside on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:40:27 AM PDT