Why Democrats Should be Dropping Out

Luke O'Connell, Editor in Chief

     As we look forward, after the third debate of the 2020 election cycle, I find it important to discuss where each of the Democratic candidates are headed. To put it bluntly, many of the candidates ought to drop out. In reality, only three candidates have a real chance at winning: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. The fact that so many Dems are running is dangerous for two reasons: it takes away from Democratic chances to take both the House and the Senate, and it may cause rifts in a party that needs unity now more than ever.

     This is not to say that the Democratic party does not need the other 17 candidates still vying for the 2020 ticket, though. In fact, the party needs some of them more than they ever have before. Take for example our Montana governor, Steve Bullock. To many people, it seems more logical for the candidate to stay local. Though he is termed out as governor, he may be able to beat Daines for a Senate seat, helping the Democratic party in the process.

Courtesy of Flickr

     Another example of this is Beto O’Rourke. In 2018, the El Paso city councilman lost a close Senate election against Ted Cruz and in the process earned the most votes by a Democrat in Texas history, around 4 million. The next step, logically, would be another Senate run, but in part due to the mass media attention that O’Rourke earned in 2018, he decided to run for president instead. O’Rourke has better odds at winning in Texas than he does running for President, and if he decides to run in Texas, and wins, that would move the Democrats one seat closer to taking the Senate. 

     Both O’Rourke and Bullock can win in their home states, but thinking they have a chance at the presidency is ridiculous. Many candidates should run in their home states, and others shouldn’t be running at all.

      One candidate who shouldn’t be running is Andrew Yang. Polling at just 3 percent, the founder of Venture for America’s chances at earning the Democratic ticket seem slim. His main focus is the “Freedom Dividend,” a totally ridiculous idea created to keep American jobs away from AI. 

     The Freedom Dividend idea is loosely based off of the Alaska Permanent Fund, from which all residents of Alaska are given around $1,000 annually. The money is taken out of the oil revenue leaving Alaska and is distributed by the Alaskan government. Yang claims that the government will take money from companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook in order to provide a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for all Americans over the age of 18.

     Yang argues that in the next few decades, more and more jobs will be replaced by AI, and “this time new jobs will not appear quickly enough in large enough numbers to make up for it,” which is why he believes the Freedom Dividend should be in place. We’ve seen how the current President with no political background has worked out, why would Yang be any different?

     John Delaney, a “moderate” Democrat, is another candidate who should drop out. Candidate Warren said it herself, in response to his argument that many candidates are focusing on fairy tale economics rather than real solutions: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for President of the United States to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.” In an age where the Forbes 400 have more money than the bottom 64 percent, moderate change is not what we need.

     Winning the Senate is just as important for the Democrats as winning the presidency, if not more, and many candidates will have to drop out in order to do that. Even if a Democrat ends up in the White House, he or she won’t be able to get anything done without the support of a Democratic House and Senate. Examples of this are common, and the most prevalent one is the second half of Obama’s presidency. As the Democrats lost control of the Senate, he lost all power, and nothing got done. If the Democrats don’t earn a majority, then what’s it all for?