The stakes were not nearly so high nor the sting of defeat so great for Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), but he did himself and his party some good in graciously recognizing his presidential campaign was going nowhere. He thanked family and supporters and vowed to continue fighting for the issues that mattered in a campaign for reelection to the House. He explained his exit, “Being honest with ourselves, we had to look at how much money we were raising, where we were in the polls.” He continued, “We wanted to be honest with ourselves and with our supporters. If there was a viable chance, I would not be standing here today. . . . I didn’t want to mislead my family, my staff, our supporters, my constituents.” Well, that’s an admirable sentiment.

It was not a waste of his time, he insisted. His gun safety message got some attention. And he said, “I’ll never forget the people I met and lessons I learned while traveling around our great nation. . . . I will take those lessons back to Congress, serving my friends and neighbors in California’s 15th District while using my seats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees to make our nation safer and uphold the rule of law for all Americans.” He declined to endorse anyone but complimented the field of candidates.

AD

AD

And then he did something unexpected. He said he wanted to thank the media he saw along the trail and in all the airports everywhere he went. “They ask the tough questions we expect in a democracy,” he said. “You are not the enemy of the American people," he said addressing them directly. “You uphold the promise of our Constitution, of free speech and of a free press.”

He will remain a rising star in his party. (Note to others: Leave early, be gracious and don’t suffer a humiliating loss in the primaries and caucuses.) He will continue as a strong member of the House Intelligence Committee and will, I expect, have more stature on the gun issue than he did before he started.

Other Democrats should seriously consider bowing out as well, if not before the July debate then before the September debate when failure to reach 2 percent in the polls and garner 130,000 donors will force the Democratic National Committee to knock them off the stage. (Swalwell possibly would have missed the July debate but smartly took himself out first.)

AD

AD

The sooner the nonviable candidates leave, the sooner voters can size up the competitive contenders and the sooner — this is key — the party can begin some serious debate about what the candidates are actually proposing. Is the wealth tax the best way to tax the super rich? What should be our policy in Afghanistan? Do we really want lower-earning taxpayers to pay for the college education of kids of wealthier Americans? Is increasing homeownership the best way to close the wealth gap between whites and blacks or do we risk a repeat of the 2008 housing crash?

When the field is reduced to a reasonable number of serious contenders, Democrats can see for themselves which policies make sense and which candidates are best able to defend their views. Let’s hope that comes soon.