Edwards Out

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:25


( - promoted by Matt Stoller)

CNN is reporting that Edwards is done.  I think this is bad for Obama, but I guess we'll see where his vote goes.  Edwards is more likely to endorse Obama than Clinton, so of course there's that.

... I'll just add that Edwards did have some effect on this race.  He pushed and prodded a bit and injected some economic populism into the election, and he was helpful in a variety of fights we undertook, such as the Fox News fight and the FISA dispute.  While he did run slightly to the left of the other candidates, my sense is that his presence as a progressive champion was overstated because he could never convincingly explain why he had shifted from his track record as a fairly moderate Senator to a harder edged candidate.  That said, I'm glad he was in this, he did some good, and I hope he lands a spot in the next administration somewhere.  It's always good when someone who has had such sustained contact with voters for so long is moved into a position of authority.
Matt Stoller :: Edwards Out

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Edwards Out | 69 comments
John Edwards -Thank you very much. (4.00 / 3)
Someone will write a great tribute to JRE for his brilliant progressive work open up the political discussion and bring the real issues forward. I hope there is reason to celebrate this going forward. Knowing John it will be.

This isn't an Obit, it's a chapter heading for John Edwards and progressive politics in America.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Link please, Matt (0.00 / 0)

Story here (4.00 / 2)
Edwards Is Dropping Out

Edwards in on the ballot in Virginia so I'll be voting for him on Feb. 12 because I would at least like one opportunity to vote my first choice.  I'm disappointed at the prospect of holding my nose yet again this November.

Edwards is more likely to endorse Obama than Clinton, so of course there's that.

I hope he makes no endorsement.  It's also a mistake for Obama supporters to assume that Edwards supporters will move to Obama's camp. 

In essense you are voting for the Clintons (4.00 / 1)
Congrats......NOT
[ Parent ]
Does that make Edwards a potential "spoiler"? (4.00 / 3)
Whether Clinton, or Obama end up with the nomination, the loser will point to every Edwards vote and try to spin it so that they are not responsible for the loss.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
umm... (0.00 / 0)
You might want to hold off on insulting those of us who are considering voting for Hillary now that Edwards is out (not to mention -- gasp -- people who were considering voting for Hillary in general).  I mean, when you say "the Clintons" like their evil is self-evident or something, it's really convincing.

Reasonable folk can come down on either side.  Just sayin'...

[ Parent ]
Edwards to announce decision at 1 EST (4.00 / 4)
My understanding is that there will be no endorsement.

Personally, I intend to vote for him on Feb 5 anyway.  He's the most progressive candidate and I vote on principle. My vote is the most personal thing I possess as a citizen.

Weird (4.00 / 1)
As a two time Nader voter, I understand the desire to vote for a loser on principle.

But if you're going to do that, why not vote for Kucinich or Gravel?

[ Parent ]
Because I'm a JRE supporter (4.00 / 3)
and have been for years.  I don't appreciate your insult to me or my candidate.
[ Parent ]
Sorry (2.00 / 2)
My intention was not to insult. Trust me, I've voted for much bigger losers than JRE with a smile on my face. Like I said. I voted Nader twice and am still proud of my votes.

I guess I just wonder, if you want to cast a vote on principle alone, why not go with the farthest left candidate you can find? Or even, one who hasn't formally dropped out yet like Gravel?

[ Parent ]
So you're the one :-) (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Wrong! (0.00 / 0)
There was more than one Nader voter in those elections.

I'm pretty sure that Ralph voted for himself in at least one of them. That makes at least two of us!

[ Parent ]
Would you please read what you wrote? (4.00 / 4)
You are still insulting my candidate.  My vote is personal and I will still vote for my candidate.  I don't jump ship like some folks have done at this place, Kos, My DD, the DU.  I vote on principle and on the candidate.

To get a better insight about identity politics and why I support John Edwards, read my diary at MyDD from last week.

http://www.mydd.com/...


[ Parent ]
OK (4.00 / 1)
Well, if you feel that you have a strong personal bond with these candidates, then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck with that.

And try not to forget, they're politicians, not religious figures, and not your friends.

[ Parent ]
Funny (0.00 / 0)
And try not to forget, they're politicians, not religious figures, and not your friends.

Very strange comment coming from an Obama supporter. 

[ Parent ]
Huh (0.00 / 0)
I suppose it would appear that the narrative which states that Obama's support is a cult of personality might be false!
[ Parent ]
huh? (4.00 / 2)
"if you want to cast a vote on principle alone, why not go with the farthest left candidate you can find"

Why do you assume that the most principled thing to do is to vote for an extreme candidate? Does principle = extremism in your mind?

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
But I do think it should be pretty clear that Kucinich as Edwards' rhetoric, and as a bonus, Kucinich actually has the record to back it up.

That's what I mean by farther left.

[ Parent ]
Figures... (4.00 / 6)
...that I would make a contribution to his campaign barely 5 minutes before a friend called me with the news.

The irony would be delicious, if only it wasn't at my expense.

Too bad (4.00 / 4)
Among the top three Edwards was (from my view point) the best on health care and the best on residual forces in Iraq.  And he is a partisan Democrat.  At least I'll be able to vote for Hillary rather than Edwards on February 5 with a clear conscience.  Health care, specifically true universal health care, remains my top issue.  That alone eliminated Obama for me.  The lack of partisanship against Republicans just increased my distrust.

Like Al Gore before him, Edwards looks primed to have a long and fruitful career as a public citizen but not as a candidate.  We have been richer as a community because of Edwards and his stature can only grow as the years pass.

One final note, Giuliani and Edwards are out.  Are you sure Florida doesn't matter, Matt?

Question (4.00 / 1)
For one of you knowledgable delegate counters, what happens with the currently pledged delegates that Edwards has accrued?  If he endorses someone do those delegates go that way?  I know Superdelegates have no commitment, but what about his New Hampshire and Iowa delegates?
From what I've read, his delegates (0.00 / 0)
become unattached.  It really doesn't matter since the actual delegates will be picked at state conventions prior to the national anyway.  At present, no one actually has any delegates committed anyway.  At least, that's what I've been told fwiw.

[ Parent ]
One would also assume... (4.00 / 1)
...that if Edwards does make an endorsement (of Obama or Clinton), his delegates would support that person.
[ Parent ]
Who know? They woud do whatever they desired. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I think that is the tradition (0.00 / 0)
with most delegates.  Several posted on dKos the other day, and said they would honor John's endorsement if he has one.
[ Parent ]
Not in New York (0.00 / 0)
Delegates are elected in the primary.  Super delegates are a different matter.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November
[ Parent ]
My First Thought Is That This Helps Clinton (4.00 / 1)
Dropping out now, just a week before Super-Duper Tuesday strikes me as really strange.

Not for Guiliani, who is the very definition of strange, and desperately needed to get out so that Ron Paul would stop humiliating him.

But for Edwards, what's the point?  It undercuts any possibility of playing a powerbroker role. It undercuts all the organizing that's gone into those states.  And it hands a clear advantage to Clinton, in the estimates that Chris has been doing since the dawn of recorded history--an advantage that might well no longer be the case after February 5.

So the only sense that I can make out of it, is that it is a deliberate gift to Clinton, with Edwards thinking it is more effective not to endorse her explicitly--which doesn't say a lot for his sense of his own influence over his own supporters.  (Does he get a VP slot out of this?  If so, it would be a smart move in the "balanced ticket" tradition--with all the caveats that entails, given Chris's criticism of it.)

This pretty much reflects the problem that I've had in supporting Edwards all along.  The clear strategic vision is not there.  (He's not alone. Only the maniacs seem to have it.)  The commitment to fighting on is problematic. (And yet, he was clearly more committed than that Kerry fellah.) And the move is ambibuous.

These are actually weaknesses shared by all the Democrats' top candidates, which is why I never endorsed.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

don't be so sure (0.00 / 0)
Check out this excellent diary about who Edwards supporters would be projected to go to.

But yeah, I agree with your general points about the lack of strategic vision by Edwards.

[ Parent ]
Not So Much (0.00 / 0)
This argues that more Edwards supporters would go to Clinton.  But that's not the point--and I should thank you for prompting me to clarify myself. After Feb 5th, I think it's quite possible, maybe even probable that it would be enough.  But right now, Clinton getting 1 in 3 Edwards supporters would probably be enough for her in most states. And 2 in 5 definitely would.

Now, it's possible that the simplified choices would help Obama in terms of defining the race.  But the media has already edited Edwards out of the picture anyway.  So that doesn't seem like it would matter as much.  Thus, I think that the voter support split is more indicative of where things stand, and I don't see the race as close enough yet for Obama to clearly take the lead on Super-Duper Tuesday.

Of course I could be wrong.  The Kennedy endorsements are important, and a real sign of shifting momentum. There is clearly a lot of enthusiasm in the Obama camp, and it's being picked up on.  But all the more reason that Edwards dropping out and not endorsing seems to put a damper on things.

Anyway, that's the rationale behind my impression. I'm not heavily invested it, but my instant response was based on some degree of previous reflection, FWIW.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
huh? (0.00 / 0)
The linked diarist says that:


However, the evidence suggests that Obama would close his national margin with Hillary Clinton by 2-4 points if Edwards decided to exit the race.

How is that saying that more Edwards voters would go to Clinton? Maybe Clinton gets 1 in 3 or 2 in 5 Edwards supporters, but Obama getting the other 2 in 3 or 3 in 5 more than outweights that, no?

As far as the voter support split, I don't think there's enough of a sample size to make any conclusions - just one poll from Jan 9-10 (which incidentally favors Obama by 2:1).

And I'm not convinced that Edwards won't endorse before 2/5. If he does, then expect a new round of positive media for the endorsee (as well as a fresh wave of superdelegates).

[ Parent ]
Edwards... (4.00 / 2)
for Attorney General if not for VP.
[ Parent ]
For VP??????? (0.00 / 0)
He lost his last presidential bid.
He lost the last election.
He is no longer in congress.
He lost this bid.

WHY?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
I don't really see VP in the works either... (4.00 / 3)
Paul posited the question in his post. If VP is untenable then AG keeps Edward's political career alive. I'd like to keep him on our bench of Democrats with national stature.
Given this campaign, I can't see him ever tacking back to the DLC camp again--the bridges are burned. He's one of ours now.
[ Parent ]
Supreme Court, Maybe? NT (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 3)
That's the smartest idea about what to do with John Edwards that I can think of.

He's still young, and he might actually take steps to end corporate personhood.

Of course, he also might be full of hot air. I always kind of thought he was which is why I never got on board with his campaign.

But, there would be worse SCOTUS justices you could pick.

[ Parent ]
This Could Be An Inspired Choice (0.00 / 0)
It's always impossible to tell what's going to happen on the Court.  But Edwards does seem plausible as the sort of justice that can bring other justices around--always a valuable sort to have in the mix.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Thanks Paul... (0.00 / 0)
for articulating exactly what I was thinking about the value of having a political operator like Edwards on the court. However, I agree with others that we don't really know for sure what his core beliefs are, only that he is currently locked into a progressive identity in the political gallaxy.
My dream date for the Supreme Court remains Cass Sunstein, and I'd like to see him chosen ahead of Edwards. He's cultivated a great reputation with his theory of judicial minimalism that will undercut the "liberal activist judge" meme, while at heart being a committed liberal.
[ Parent ]
I Don't Give A Rat's Ass About The "Liberal Activist Judge" Meme (4.00 / 1)
As the Alliance For Justice notes in its "State of the Judiciary report:

Flouting Precedent, Shifting the Law

President Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court have demonstrated their willingness to jettison established precedent and legal procedure when it stands in the way of advancing their ultraconservative agenda.

Despite the fealty to Brown v. Board of Education sworn by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito during their confirmation hearings, they overturned decades of precedent to end local school districts' voluntary integration programs.  The decision prompted Justice Stephen Breyer to observe that, "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much."

Bush appointee Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion denying Alabama worker Lilly Ledbetter fair pay.  The Court's ruling ignored the precedent established in Bazemore v. Friday, a unanimous Supreme Court decision recognizing that each paycheck is a separate discriminatory act.

Increasingly, ultraconservatives on the bench are granting summary judgment against plaintiffs in worker, consumer and civil rights cases and overturning jury verdicts that favor those same plaintiffs.

Moreover, I've been less and less impressed with Sunstein over the years.

Erwin Chemerinsky's a much better pick, IMHO.  In addition to everything else, his involvement with LA Charter Reform and establishment of the Neighborhood Council system shows a real hands-on commitment to democratization that would be a breath of fresh air in those stuffy chambers.  Not exactly Thurgood Marshall, but, then, who is?  A step in the right direction, though, that's for sure.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
Chemerinsky is a more loudly liberal pick, but the Republicans stuffed his appointment to the ninth circuit court during the Clinton era, so he's already got a target on his back. Unless the Dems get a solid 60-plus in the Senate to hold off the filibuster, he won't go anywhere.
Perhaps we could run Chemerinsky through the nomination process and let the Repubs exhaust themselves against him, and then Sunstein gets a relatively easy walkthrough by default.
Politically, if we in the blogosphere are part of the progressive vanguard then we should hold out for a more dramatically liberal jurist to move the goalposts or the Overton window or whatever. But you have to deal with the fact that the "liberal activist judge" meme is a giant frame that the Repubs have erected in the US marketplace of ideas right now, and we will have to smash through it or walk around it, but we can't ignore it.
Another small point: Chemerinsky called Roberts a "deeply troubling" choice for the  court, whereas Sunstein spoke well of Roberts (even if he disagreed with him). In internal court politics, little things like that could make Sunstein more influential than Chemerinsky.
[ Parent ]
Agreed, We Have To Smash The Meme (4.00 / 2)
Trying to duck or accomodate it just gives it more, illegitimate power.  It needs to be smashed into a million pieces.  And a high-profile confirmation hearing is a perfect way to do that.  Of course it would take a lot of spadework to do it right, and we're talking about the Democratic Party here, so it clearly falls into the realm of what Blake might call "A Memorably Fancy."

But if we don't think about such things, what it would involve, and what would be gained, then nothing whatsoever will ever change.

As for Chemerinsky having had his nomination stuffed during the Clinton era, BFD.  They did that routinely:

Republican Revisionist History on Judicial Nominations

Senator Hatch, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has argued on the Senate floor that in defeating the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit, the Judiciary Committee has "rejected for the first time in history a nominee who has received the American Bar Association's (ABA) unanimous rating, highest rating of `well-qualified'."

Senator Hatch - and other Republican Senators who have made similar claims - are reinventing the history of their six years of control of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the years that Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee, the preferred method of "rejecting" scores of judicial nominees was to deny them Committee hearings and votes.

More than a dozen of President Clinton's Circuit Court nominees received the American Bar Association's (ABA) unanimous "well-qualified" rating, but their nominations were defeated because their hearings were rejected by Republicans.

The following Circuit Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 are in this category: H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit).

Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit), who was also rated "well-qualified" by the ABA, received a hearing but was not allowed a vote by the Republican-controlled Committee.

More than a dozen other Circuit Court nominees with "partial well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings were also defeated by Republicans who blocked their hearings or votes, including Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).

Dozens of District Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 with unanimous "well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings also were blocked by Republican refusal to give them hearings or votes. In all, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through Republican blocking of hearings and votes, despite their ABA ratings.

So, in the immortal words of the stupidest president ever, "Bring it on."

p.s.  Roberts can always just resign in a fit of pique.  Chemerinsky's on a roll since the effort to blackball him at UCI blew up in the GOP's face.  Conservative law professors were horrified, and said so on the record.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
AG, Sec'y of Commerce, World Bank?? (0.00 / 0)
There's definitely a high profile role for him somewhere.

John McCain won't insure children
[ Parent ]
Not what I want (4.00 / 2)
He has no experience as a judge and his career as a lawyer seems to involve cases that aren't a matter of constitutional law.  I prefer a heftier resume for Supreme Court appointments.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Taft! (4.00 / 2)
Some of our greatest SCOTUS justices have had no experience as a judge, or even a lawyer.
[ Parent ]
Earl Warren (4.00 / 1)
Not a judge.

DA, State AG, governor.

Not a judge.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I'm Not Saying It Makes Sense To ME (0.00 / 0)
I'm only saying it's plausible that it was in the picture.

Lots of things that are in the picture don't make sense. No?



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I'm wondering if it's because Elizabeth is in bad health (4.00 / 1)
We haven't heard much about her, and she has been doing chemo treatments the past few months.  I'm guessing this is playing a factor in his decision.
[ Parent ]
Edwards Is Not Leaving Without Some Reason (4.00 / 1)
and I suspect that he favors Obama; stayed in through South Carolina to help Obama there (by splitting the white vote with Clinton); and then waiting until Obama thought the time was right to exit.  Just my guessing, but I suspect that Obama did not want the Edwards exit to step on the Kennedy family endorsement news; thought the timing now would distract from Clinton's slick gambit in Florida; and wanted to clear the decks for the debate on Thursday and in time to build his momentum for Super Tuesday.

And, I suspect, Edwards got a promise of something, such as Attorney General, if not Vice President.

Just guessing.

It's Possible, But... (0.00 / 0)
If so, why no endorsement???


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Good Question... (0.00 / 0)
More guessing: Obama does not want his endorsement?  It would "tarnish" the Obama centrist brand in the light of the corporate media, by making Obama seem to progressive? 

Or, Obama and Edwards believe that an overt endorsement might backfire, e.g., allowing Clinton criticize both of them, for example on the inconsistencies of their health care proposals?

[ Parent ]
Or... (0.00 / 0)
Obama's campaign is concerned about backlash, especially from women (as evidenced in New Hampshire).  I think that Edwards' explicit support for Obama in the NH debate really hurt Obama (and Edwards) vis-a-vis Clinton.  I can see why they wouldn't want to re-invoke that moment by having Edwards endorse Obama. 
[ Parent ]
Good Point... (0.00 / 0)
It did seem as though they were ganging up on Hillary and it would seem the same now.  I suspect that the natural break of Edwards' supporters will be slightly in Obama's favor (anti-Clinton outweighing desiring a woman in the White House) without an explicit endorsement but that an endorsement might, for the reason you cite, cost Obama that slight edge.
[ Parent ]
leaves him untarnished for a clintons appointment? (0.00 / 0)
if he endorses Obama he's damaged goods to the Clintons. just speculation that he's playing the numbers for his own roll post-nomination?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I agree with you.. (0.00 / 0)
I suspect he favors Obama too...

Anyways we'll see when he makes his speech...  if he endorses and who is right.

[ Parent ]
You're not guessing... (0.00 / 0)
you've just been paying attention :).  There's always some motivation behind these things.
[ Parent ]
What's Wrong With Your Time Stamp? (0.00 / 0)
4:50am EST ?
I just saw him last night (0.00 / 0)
I just saw Edwards speak last night in St. Paul, MN.  He didn't sound like he was going to drop out.  If he was about to drop out, I wouldn't expect him to let us in on it early, but I would have expected more of a general speech about his principles.  That was there, but he was also asking for specific action with regard to the caucuses next week here in Minnesota.  Very odd.

I will say that he clearly was hitting on the income inequality and poverty issues really hard.  He did look great and the crowd loved him.  The room was packed despite the windchill being somewhere around -30 F last night.

Question For Edwards Supporters (4.00 / 1)
If you have a strong opinion on Obama vs Clinton, would you feel betrayed if Edwards endorsed the one that you do not prefer?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
God no (0.00 / 0)
That would be ridiculous--Edwards has the right, like all of us, to vote/endorse whomever he wants.  I may not vote for the one he endorses, but I'll respect his decision.
[ Parent ]
no (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't feel betrayed, just confused and more willing to look at the candidate I didn't prefer.  But I am dismayed that Edwards is going to drop out after saying he was in it until the convention (why say it at all if you are not going to carry through?  why not just side-step the question or not mention it without prompting). 

Really curious about Edwards reasoning, if it is personal/family I can get down with that.....otherwise what the hell?

[ Parent ]
Actually, That Does Make Sense (0.00 / 0)
The personal/family angle.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
The Strain of the Campaign.... (0.00 / 0)
It can't be good for Elizabeth... I wish her well -- she is one brave woman.
[ Parent ]
I hope that Edwards makes the best decision for (0.00 / 0)
The 'Party' as well as listening to the youth that are making a strong statement...

But, we'll see...

[ Parent ]
I will vote for him on February 5. Both Obama and Clinton are (4.00 / 3)
the darlings of Wall Street.  Obama is much more conservative than Clinton on economic issues.  Then there is the Iraq war and middle east policy in general.  With Clinton, there will be no withdrawal.  Barach says he will withdraw, but who knows when push comes to shove.  Why did he continually vote to fund the war?

God, I'm disappointed.

I am also tired of hearing whether Edwards was tacking left because he is a political opportunist.  He did not have to explain his past (sorry Feingold).  What was important is that he was saying the right things now.

Finally, there are protest votes and there are protest votes.  Neither Kucinich or Gravel had an impact on framing the issues for this primary.  They both have huge image problems.  Voting for Edwards on February 5 lets Clinton and Obama know that his agenda is important and they can not tack to the right.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

How do you know (0.00 / 0)
Obama is more conservative than Clinton?
[ Parent ]
Makes it VERY hard on Obama now (0.00 / 0)
A month or two ago it seemed like Edwards' presence was mostly hurting Obama by splitting the anti-Clinton vote. But that's old CW now. The more important split, at least in many states, is Edwards taking white votes away from Clinton. In polls and actual results in states with significant African American populations, Obama takes 80% of the black vote and about 30% of the white vote (sometimes a bit more, as in SC, but never 50%). And Edwards' support is almost 100% white. So do the math.

I may be alone on this, and as an Edwards supporter I'm kind of ambivalent about how I feel about it, but I've done the match 100 ways and I think there's an excellent chance Clinton will have all but clinched this thing by next Wednesday. Her Florida gambit was brilliant and it worked perfectly: She knew she would win if neither campaigned, so she knew Obama was in a box. And he chose wrong. He should have stayed in Florida and taken the hits from the DNC. Now she has completely (and for free) taken all the wind out of his SC sails heading into Super Tuesday. If you don't believe me, read your local paper this morning and tell me it doesn't say "Clinton wins Florida".

Only in the south (0.00 / 0)
This calculus is plausible in southern states, but less so in Northeastern and Western states.  The bottom line is that we just don't know where Edwards' supporters will go.  Consider this: there is some indication that Clinton supporters have been moving to Edwards in California (based on polling numbers -- Clinton is going down, Obama is basically stable, Edwards is rising).  Assuming this statement is true, where will these people go?  Back to Clinton?  On to Obama?  Who knows...

This thing is really fluid at this point, and I don't think we will be able to really get a sense of where things are until this weekend.  We have a debate on Thursday which will be the first Obama/Clinton debate yet. That should play a role in people's decision making process.  Also, we don't know if other people will endorse before 2/5 (Gore?). 

Too many variables.... 

[ Parent ]
Lukewarm praise..... (4.00 / 2)
Edwards was the most progressive candidate with a chance. Had more of the progressive blogs and supporters gotten behind him and funded his campaign more, things might have turned out differently.

Stating that Edwards "did some good" just doesn't cut it. But it does show how ridiculously pathetic the progressive sites are.

blogs (0.00 / 0)
The blogs don't fund campaigns, people do.  Those that hang out at dailykos  have been mostly pro-Edwards for a long time, but that never translated to money raised on line.  Obama has consistently done better with small donations and online donations despite the relative lack, compared to Edwards, of blogger support.  It almost makes the blogs feel like they are the MSM of the web, with Facebook and Web 2.0 passing us by.
[ Parent ]
Edwards Out | 69 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox