Edwards' Big Potential: Delegate Strength
Considering the mounting improbability of John Edwards being the Democratic nominee, is there a point to him staying in the race? The New York Times lays out the answer to that very question: The more delegates he racks up, the greater the chance of forcing a brokered nomination, giving him a whole lot of clout as the king/queen-maker.
"We're still hoping that John is the nominee," said David Bonior, Edwards' national campaign manager and former House Democratic whip. "But with a chunk of delegates, you can leverage what you've been fighting for and standing for. You can raise these issues to where they should be on the Democratic agenda. We're running for those two reasons: to get the nomination and to have his voice heard on his issues."
Comments (70)
JohnSFL wrote on January 29, 2008 9:30 AM:"The more delegates he wracks up, the greater the chance of forcing a brokered nomination..."
If he wracks up Hillary's delegates and racks up some of his own he puts Obama in good shape.
seanh wrote on January 29, 2008 9:30 AM:Trippi recently made some interesting statements, suggesting (as the NYTs also argues) Edwards could very likely capture enough delegates to decide the race come convention time.
Edwards eyes convention role — to what end?
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14359.html
“I think 200 delegates on Feb. 6 is our over-under,” Mr. Trippi said. Although he continues to insist that Mr. Edwards has a chance at securing the nomination, Mr. Trippi concedes it is a long shot. More probable: arriving at the convention with enough delegates to tip the scales in favor of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. “Edwards is the primary force keeping Clinton under 50%,” Mr. Trippi said. “Worst case? We go to the convention as the peacemaker, kingmaker, whatever you want to call it.”
As Mr. Trippi figures it, if Mr. Edwards gets more than 200 delegates through the Feb. 5 contests — just more than 10% of the total 1,700 delegates at stake that day — he has a long-shot chance of playing kingmaker. If he gets 350, Mr. Trippi said Mr. Edwards is almost assured of playing that role. […]
“Every delegate we get over 200 on Feb. 5 is a step toward a scenario that at worst gives us a shot at influencing the final outcome of this race,” Mr. Trippi said.
alternate source
http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/25/king-making/
He'll have to go with Obama, if he doesn't he will be showing everyone that all that talk of "change" vs status quo was nothing more than campaign rhetoric that he would gladly throw away for political ambition. He also knows that the Clintons have been playing very dirty, and that isn't something he wants to get behind.
Obama/Edwards 08! (or Edwards for attorney general, that works too.)
craig wrote on January 29, 2008 9:35 AM:I think he can make more than 200. I don't see why he couldn't.
Liam wrote on January 29, 2008 9:37 AM:Well that is very revealing. His national campaign manager is admitting that Edwards is no longer capable of winning the nomination, so why should people vote for him! After all it is a primary campaign to vote for the person you want to see become the next President.
Why vote to just make Edwards, who admits he has no chance of winning, a power broker. Losers should not be granted that much control of the outcome. Since they have not been able to win, why should they be granted the power to tailor the campaign of the person who beat them. A very bad idea. Time for Edwards to go. If someone trounces you in a Marathon, why should that loser be then granted the right to design how you run your next Marathon. It is patently absurd, especially after Dick Cheney wiped the floor with him in their 2004 debate.
Forget Edwards and vote for one of the two candidates that are still in contention.
workaday joe wrote on January 29, 2008 9:38 AM:I don't get this "kingmaker" language. I mean, I get how it is supposed to work in theory, but really, once a nominee is selected assuming that person wins the election, what exactly do they owe to the "kingmaker"? I can envision promises of certain cabinet members being filled by people favored by the "kingmaker", but I just don't see any real way of enforcing these promises. And for the nominee to promise certain policy positions seems totally out of the question. Am I missing something?
ChrisNBama wrote on January 29, 2008 9:39 AM:Edwards is clearly aligned with Obama. If Edwards' role as Kingmaker becomes a reality, the pro-Obama crowd should feel very good.
Anonymous wrote on January 29, 2008 9:51 AM:Edwards sitting on the Supreme Court sounds much better to me that him as a VP or AG.
Genghis wrote on January 29, 2008 9:58 AM:Trippi says
Edwards is the primary force keeping Clinton under 50%
This is a pregnant comment. It implies:
1) Edwards favors Obama
2) Edwards believes that staying in the race helps Obama by keeping Clinton under 50%
Am I reading too much into this?
nogop wrote on January 29, 2008 10:08 AM:Edwards really disgusts me. Isn't he over estimating himself? How much votes did he get in NV? Didn't he only get like a few points? Less and less people will vote for him.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 29, 2008 10:16 AM:I will vote for Edwards in March (Ohio) if he's still in the race, as I hope he will be. Those who are in a hurry to deprive me of that choice can osculate my posterior. His presence in the race has forced both of the other corpocrat-candidates to address issues of economic justice they'd have preferred to avoid. A role as convention kingmaker could accomplish even more along those lines. If you agree with his policies, it's well worth voting for him regardless of his not having a realistic chance to be the nominee.
Kevin wrote on January 29, 2008 10:17 AM:I thought we lived in a democracy?
Shouldn't the person with the most votes win?
We need to abolish the electoral college and ensure our Presidential elections are democratic!!
We need to abolish our "delegate and super delegate" system of choosing those who run for President and simply COUNT the total number of votes each person gets and that person should be the nominee for the party!!
I know it sounds obvious, but we are one of the least democratic countries in the world!!!!!
Bush won the 2000 election, but Gore got more votes!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Clinton will most likely get more votes, but could loose the nomination?!?!?!?!?!
Democracy for America NOW!!!!
Kevin wrote on January 29, 2008 10:18 AM:A vote for Edwards is a vote for Obama.
NCSteve wrote on January 29, 2008 10:19 AM:workaday joe,
There's nothing that would make such promise enforceable as a practical matter. It might be a breach of contract, but there would be formidable procedural and evidentirary problems.
However, how'd you like to start your presidency with one of your rivals loudly proclaiming that you broke a promise?
Not that that would bother Hillary, evidently, given how quickly she broke her promise not to campaign in Florida once the votes were tallied in S.C.
hadenough wrote on January 29, 2008 10:19 AM:Spoiled rich kid:
At SOTU, Obama's Clinton snub was the news
Sen. Barack Obama refused to make himself available to greet Sen. Hillary Clinton before the speech.
...
That made what happened next even more striking. Obama returned to stand by his seat next to Sen. Edward Kennedy who endorsed Obama today in a widely watched event that reverberated across the political world.
As Clinton approached, Kennedy made sure to make eye contact and indicated he wanted to shake her hand. Clinton leaned towards Kennedy over a row of seats and Kennedy leaned in towards her. They shook hands.
Obama stood icily staring at Clinton during this, then turned his back and stepped a few feet away. Kennedy may've wanted to make peace with Clinton but Obama clearly wanted no part of that.
As president, Obama has said he would meet with the U.S.'s enemies without precondition. But making nice with Clinton apparently is another mattter after the increasingly angry fight the two have waged, with charges and countercharges, for the Democratic presidential nomination.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/by_frank_james_president_bush.html
Pictures:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwAZfoVaIxMG3gK2KY4tpS9QN0NQD8UF9GT01
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/
for the non-kool-aid drinkers.
Liam, sports analogies rarely match politics very well.
The reason to keep supporting Edwards is that he is the one who has set the tone for the campaign. He's kept issues of class, poverty, the economics of ordinary families, health care, etc. in the spotlight.
The leading two would be much farther to the right if Edwards were not there. So why not support him? He is the anchor keeping the party's ship from drifting rightward. He will have a legacy in the platform, and in the mandate that the new administration has to actually reform our corrupt system.
No, I don't expect that I'll see all the reform we need -- Mr. Potter always wins, after all -- but I expect a lot better governance when influenced by Edwards than not. I really wish he had a chance, because he is only one I think really knows what the priorities need to be and who the opponents are. And I think he would do the best in the election. I see it like this:
-- Clinton: fairly conservative, appears liberal
-- Obama: a bit conservative, appears liberal
-- Edwards: very liberal, appears conservative
There is a class issue related to this -- Clinton and Obama have their Ivy League membership badges that make them palatable to the press and the Washington establishment, but Edwards is a Chapel Hill boy. It shows in their substantive priorities and in their personal styles.
Anonymous, don't you think Obama is more the judge type? He's the Con Law professor; Edwards is the trial lawyer. I see Edwards as a great AG.
I plan to vote for Edwards on Super Tuesday because be best understands the problems I see and best represents the solutions I favor. I want him to have the delegates to influence the platform that comes out of the convention.
If neither Hillary nor Obama have reached 50% of the delegates, then they will need Edwards' delegates. To get them, they will have to negotiate and accept some of his positions.
I see no other way for my priorities to enter into the process except by voting for the candidate who reflects them.
Hadenough,
Obama and Clinton are often within feet of each on the senate floor and fail to acknowledge each other. This has been a dance they have done before. I think it's immature, but it's not new.
The more interesting tidbit that "The Hill" reports is who is taking their queues from whom:
"In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama’s response before showing her own.
When Bush warned the Iranian government that “America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf” Obama jumped up to applaud. Clinton leaned across Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), seated to her left, to look in Obama’s direction before slowly standing. "
This speaks volumes.
Article here:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-obama-steal-bushs-final-show-2008-01-29.html
I'm an Obama supporter that wholeheartedly wants Edwards to stay in the race.
His continued presence hurts Clinton more than Obama.
However, I do want to point out:
Clinton will most likely get more votes, but could loose the nomination?!?!?!?!?!
In fact - as it stands right now -- the opposite is true. Trying to track down the link, but I'm fairly certain that Obama has a fairly decent lead -- plurality, but a lead still -- in the popular vote totals.
john wrote on January 29, 2008 10:50 AM:The reverse seems to be true indeed, at least so far - Obama is doing well in popuilar support, but Hillary has a lot of pledged Superdelegates. Basically she owns the Democratic machine, and he has the people. If they split the regular delegates, she'll win by virtue of the Superdelegates (unless they switch loyalties, which they are free to do).
Aaron wrote on January 29, 2008 10:51 AM:hadenough:
http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/kennedyclintonsh260.jpg
It could only be a snub, right? Because MSNBC said so. It couldn't be one Senator talking to another Senator who wasn't HRC.
Hugely wrote on January 29, 2008 10:57 AM:im in CA and im planning on voting for Edwards. I am actually ok with all of the candidates but Edwards suits my outlook best and I saw that he leads the other Dem candidates in a GE match up - far and away
Mark wrote on January 29, 2008 11:02 AM:"http://rezkowatch.logspot.com. for the non-kool-aid drinkers."
Actually, for Clinton supporter who want you to miraculously forget about all the scandals and sleazy people that the Clintons have been associated with.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 29, 2008 11:02 AM:Dear Kefa,
As long as we are discussing the (alledgedly under-reported) issue of Tony Rezko, I think it would be pertinant to direct folks to the recent Chicago-Tribune piece on the connections between Sen Obama and Mr Rezko. A thorough examination by the reporters of that fairly right-leaning newspaper concludes
Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko and has insisted that he never used his office to benefit Rezko.
Thus far, there is little in the public record to suggest otherwise, and the few exceptions that have come to light appear minor. On Capitol Hill, Obama once gave a summer internship to the son of a Rezko business associate on Rezko's recommendation. Earlier, as a state senator, Obama was one of several South Side political and community leaders who wrote state and city officials urging approval of public funding for a senior housing project involving Rezko.
But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it.
So, where is the scandal here? Where is the quid pro quo? Where, as your own candidate was heard to remark not so long ago, is the beef?
milorad buggeroff wrote on January 29, 2008 11:04 AM:Whatsherface had bad taste and bad judgment to call Edwards a fag back whenever, but I knew what she meant. And poor word choice to boot when a more accurate term is available: slimy weazel. Edwards has staked out his shrill Werkin' Man's Friend stance solely because he realized it was the space not already occupied. And he'll collect votes from fools unable to see through his transparantly fake persona and use the delegates collected to get some personal prize that will satisfy his enormous ego, likely a Supreme Court nomination or AG appointment. Well, the latter more likely, he clearly is no scholar or jurist. and his ego could take a merely appellate court nomination.
pjsauter wrote on January 29, 2008 11:08 AM:You'd think some of the folks here have never seen a political convention before. I suppose that's because they've been little more than dog and pony shows for so long now. But there was a time when the convention was actually fun to follow.
The reason to stay in the race and amass delegates is to try and influence what planks are put into the Democratic Party platform. I suppose you can argue that the platform is all but meaningless (imagine a Republican insisting that a gay rights or pro-choice plank be inserted into the official party platform, though, and maybe it wouldn't be quite so meaningless after all), but if Edwards can force the platform even a little bit further to the left (i.e., toward the center), then it's a good thing.
And if he's interested in a cabinet position where he thinks he can further the ideas he's been talking about (and, frankly, he's been saying the kinds of things that have great appeal to me, personally, and aren't being talked about by the other two candidates; you can say Edwards is being disingenuous if you want - I don't personally think so, but everyone's entitled to think what they want - but if Obama or Clinton shared his rhetoric, then I'd be very enthusiastic about them, instead of just willing to vote for them in the general, because the Republicans all suck at best, and are downright dangerous at the least) maybe he can get some assurances toward that, as well.
The whining coming from some of the Clinton and Obama true believers (IMHO) is getting really annoying.
Sam Storm wrote on January 29, 2008 11:09 AM:The reason someone would support Edwards rather than Obama or Clinton is because they believe in his vision and feel that the best way of promoting that vision is to show Edwards still has backing. This makes a lot of sense if you don't have a strong preference for one of the other two.
Personally, I like Edwards vision for America the most but feel Obama is the strongest candidate so ideally I want Obama to win but Edwards to have more influence than he does now. Although I wouldn't mind Clinton either so I'm not going to get all excited about it.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 29, 2008 11:12 AM:The position Edwards takes on most subject is the traditional Democratic platform. Neither Clinton or Obama adhere to the platform . . . Both lean to the recessivist right.
If Edwards carries 15 to 25% of the delagates, he will be able to convince the nominee, if it is not him, to address the needs of the people.
TheraP wrote on January 29, 2008 11:18 AM:I am all for Edwards continuing. I urge him to do so. While I hope Obama is our nominee, Edwards has an important message, just as Dodd did. Edwards has a role to play in getting us good health care - he'll fight the insurance companies for us.
vdomeras wrote on January 29, 2008 11:20 AM:It would be nice if he could get Obama to commit to something other than compromise --especially on health care. Obama with Edwards' policies and backbone would be my perfect candidate. Maybe he could stay on as VP to help get things done right.
SLKRR wrote on January 29, 2008 11:22 AM:200 delegates will be tough for Edwards to amass, because I think he is going to be under 15% in a lot of districts. But who knows - a week is an eternity in politics, and he only need to gain 1 or 2% here or there to greatly increase his share of delegates. More power to him if he can!
john wrote on January 29, 2008 11:28 AM:It will be interesting to see if Obama picks up some of Edwards' rhetoric to try to get some of his votes, or if he lets Edwards' flank Hillary to the far left. It would show whether he wants to get Edwards' supporters without taking Edwards as well, or if he values Edwards' ability to be the attacker while Obama continues to be Mr. Sunshine.
I really don't see Edwards getting along with Hillary; if she and Obama are both close and need Edwards' delegates, I think Obama would be more likely to come up with a plan that Edwards would support than Hillary could.
Greg DeLassus said, regarding the Obama-Rezko matter:
So, where is the scandal here? Where is the quid pro quo? Where, as your own candidate was heard to remark not so long ago, is the beef?
I have no doubt that Obama did nothing wrong, and this situation reminds me very much of the various Clinton "scandals." What the 90s proved is that a major Democratic politician does not have to actually do anything wrong for it to explode into a major scandal. Should Obama be elected, look for the Rezko matter to dog him till the day he leaves office.
My only point here is that those who think that Obama will somehow be immune from Republican attacks (or at least less susceptible than HRC) are deeply in denial of how this process works.
zmulls wrote on January 29, 2008 11:31 AM:When you vote in a Primary, you are not voting for a candidate. You are voting for delegates to go to the convention who are committed to voting for you candidate on the first ballot. This makes more sense than the Electoral College. The convention is where representatives of the whole party get together to decide who the nominee will be.
Because of the first-ballot commitment, and the way the "momentum" has rolled out for the last 40 years, one candidate has almost always racked up enough first-ballot commitments to clinch the nomination before the convention.
It's the way it's happened, but it's *not* the way the system was designed, nor the way it was intended to happen. The floor vote for President is not supposed to be a formality -- that's the night the party actually chooses the nominee.
Past the first ballot, delegates are allowed to change their minds. Maybe they have second thoughts about their candidate, having seen or heard something during the period between the primary and the convention. Maybe they need to break a deadlock. Who knows? But there's no rule anywhere that says whoever gets the most votes, even if they don't get a first-ballot win, is entitled to the nomination.
It's the art of the possible -- it is possible (though increasingly improbable) that Edwards can work the convention and become the compromise candidate. It is possible that he can use the support he's gained -- from people who admire him and want him to have influence -- to gain a spot in the next administration. Maybe he just wants to make sure that if he's not the nominee, the person who gets nominated moves in the direction he wants -- and that the person he wants to see nominated gets it.
That's fair. It's all fair. It's fair, in politics, to do what you can to influence outcomes in the direction you want. That's what politics is.
And it's why Edwards is getting my vote in the PA primary, whatever happens.
oleeb wrote on January 29, 2008 11:36 AM:If neither Obama nor Clinton go into the convention with enough delegates to win it not only makes Edwards a power broker, it puts him back in contention for the nomination. It's unlikely, by the time the convention rolls around, that the Clinton/Obama camps will be able to stomach eachother. Both will detest the very idea of one or the other being the nomineee. The only alternative at that point is everyone's second choice: Edwards. This is certainly not a definite outcome, but still a plausible one under the circumstances described above. In essence, Edwards will be the only one who can bring all the factions together.
skibumlee wrote on January 29, 2008 11:44 AM:zmulls - your explanation rocks!
Not only am I voting for delegates to pick John Edwards - I am voting for a cause that is bigger than John Edwards - that movement will live on even if Edwards is not picked as the nominee.
I think there is good chance that John Edwards can win - Look at Mccain's rise an Guillani fall. Obama and Clinton have shown weakness and could have a Melt Down at any time.
In a primary - Vote Your Conscience!
don't worry about the predictions.
I Proudly voted for John Edwards in CA vote by mail, and will continue to Donate $$$$ to the Cause!!!
wes2 wrote on January 29, 2008 11:44 AM:
john @11:28
I think Obama already is adopting much of Edwards' rhetoric. I thought so a number of times in the SC victory speech (forces of status quo fighting back with everything they've got, and the personal anecdotes of the teacher working at Dunkin Donuts or the Maytag worker). It will be interesting to see what happens in Super Tuesday states where the two are both searching for delegates, like Missouri or Tennessee. But beyond that, it's good to see Edwards' ideas getting traction beyond his campaign.
pjsauter wrote on January 29, 2008 11:45 AM:You could also see an outsider - say, Al Gore - come into a hopelessly deadlocked convention, and be nominated. Likely? Of course not. But possible. And it would be lots of fun to see.
Jaymay wrote on January 29, 2008 11:46 AM:Remember that Edwards is still smarting from 2004. The Clintons did not actively campaign on his and Kerry's behalf, and there was a feeling that they wanted Kerry to lose to set up this exact scenario -- Hillary running after a full senate term with the country hugely pro-Democratic because of the Iraq War.
Edwards has been the progressive voice in this campaign. Hillary and Barack have always been one step behind him, one step more tentative, on policy issues. He deserves every vote he gets.
There's no way Edwards gets the nomination if he goes in with 10-15% of the delegates. But he certainly sets up an Obama-Edwards ticket.
Lariokie wrote on January 29, 2008 11:48 AM:To answer the question, "why vote to make Edwards a power broker?" Who is the ONLY candidate that has made it clear that the only way to get our democracy back is to de-fang the corporations? Who is the only candidate who suggests that the real solution to our economic problems is to re-empower the middleclass and help the poor? Who is the only candidate that has actually fought those very corporations in the courts?
That is the only real and certainly the most powerful message in this campaign, and Edwards it the ONLY one speaking that truth! NOT Obama, NOT Clinton, and certainly not any of the fascists on the Republican side.
If Edwards can use his delegates to get committments from Obama or Clinton on those most critical issues for our country and our democracy, he will have accomplished what no other candidate has.
That is the reason I am voting for him. Forget all this "Kingmaker/Queenmaker" rhetoric. Start thinking about what is REAL for Christ's sake. Our country is now a virtual Banana Republic economically. I live in a town of only 8000 people, and virtually hundreds are homeless! IN AMERICA!! Forget your petty ego-arguments and think about our future.
Vote for Edwards or throw your vote away on one of the two candidates who have said NOTHING about corporate power or the fact that the richest 20% of Americans now have nearly 90% of the nations wealth! That means the bottom 80%--you and me--are left with only 10% to spread thinly among us. That is the real issue of the day, and not this junk politics of the media and those who see the world as a music video. WAKE UP!!
Anon. wrote on January 29, 2008 11:53 AM:I wouldn't be so sure that Edwards would back Obama at a brokered convention, and I damned sure wouldn't be so sure that he would act on progressive principles.
I have to admit it--I gave Edwards serious consideration before backing Obama. I honestly liked what he had to say. Announcing his run in New Orleans impressed me.
But I just don't trust him.
I remember when he was the DLC golden boy just a few years ago. I don't necesssarily hold that against him since Dean was DLC, too. People can change. I know Edwards has people like David Bonior behind him, and that's not a small thing, but I still don't trust him. I totally believe that he'd jump to Clinton if the toy was shiny enough.
Genghis wrote on January 29, 2008 11:54 AM:I was just over at the CNN delegate counter. Did you know that Gravel is still in the race? Maybe he wants to play kingmaker too. Who do you think he would endorse?
Julie wrote on January 29, 2008 11:58 AM:To those who can't understand why Edwards is soldiering on:
"But with a chunk of delegates, you can leverage what you've been fighting for and standing for. You can raise these issues to where they should be on the Democratic agenda. We're running for those two reasons: to get the nomination and to have his voice heard on his issues."
In 2004, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich dragged Terry McAuliffe and the DNC, kicking and screaming, up off their collective knees and into a standing position to face the Repubs.
In 2004, Kucinich's delegates on the platform committee, at a meeting in Florida, forced several anti-war initiatives onto the DNC agenda.
The DNC, its consultants and John Kerry still managed to lose to George Bush, but that's another story.
Anybody who's tired of big pharma, big insurance, big oil, and big business calling the shots in Washington (from their safe havens in the Caymans) wants to see John Edwards at the convention making demands.
That, of course, would be the back up position, if he's not the nominee, which, IMO, he should be.
Chrisrowe wrote on January 29, 2008 12:07 PM:This is so ridiculous. Edwards stresses the importance of Democracy, voting, giving the people the power, blah blah blah.
But then he's staying in the race only to subvert the wills of the people. Instead of letting voters select the nominee, Edwards will essentially make the final decision.
It's going to come down which candidate can offer him a better deal, instead of which candidate the American people feel have offered them the best deal.
Why don't you just do it now, John, just endorse someone now, don't subvert democracy.
Liam wrote on January 29, 2008 12:07 PM:Let the winner run on their own platform, the one that they won the nomination on, and not let the losers force the winner to run on their losing platforms. That is why we hold primaries; in order to determine who gets the most support for what they are running on. That is why we let the winner pick their own running partner, instead of allowing the losers of the nomination campaign to dictate who should be the VP.
To the winner belong the spoils. I am an Obama supporter, but should Hillary beat him for the nomination, I do not feel that he should be allowed to shape her campaign platform.
Genghis wrote on January 29, 2008 12:09 PM:Anyone know the story behind this remark in the NYT (1/21):
But some political strategists say Mr. Edwards also has another compelling reason to stay in, at least in South Carolina. He could end up sharing the white vote with Mrs. Clinton, thus helping Mr. Obama, whom Mr. Edwards has signaled he favors.
Edwards' criticisms of Clinton have definitely been tougher and more frequent than his criticisms of Obama. Is this what the reporter means about "signals"? Or has Edwards said something more specific that I'm not aware of?
There's a good summary here of various pundits positions on whether Edwards staying in the race helps Clinton or Obama:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/is_john_edwards_ruining_someon.cfm
What the 90s proved is that a major Democratic politician does not have to actually do anything wrong for it to explode into a major scandal.
Well, there may be some truth to that. I stress the "may be," however. I am a scientist, so I am wary of constructing a trend line based on one datum. To my mind, the 90s proved that Bill Clinton does not have to do anything really wrong in order for it to explode into a major scandal. Can that principle be generalized to apply to all big-time democrats? Hard to say, is it not. Can you think of any other examples that undergird this hypothesis?
That Bush can do much worse than Clinton and take less of a public relations hit for it might demonstrate that there is a double standard about how democrats and republicans are treated in the public consciousness. Alternatively, it might simply prove that Bush is more likable than Clinton, and that the public is willing to give the likable guy more of a pass than the one who comes across as "slick" or "slimy." I am hard pressed to judge between these competing theories with just the one datum to inform the decision.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 29, 2008 12:19 PM:In 2004, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich dragged Terry McAuliffe and the DNC, kicking and screaming, up off their collective knees and into a standing position to face the Repubs.In 2004, Kucinich's delegates on the platform committee, at a meeting in Florida, forced several anti-war initiatives onto the DNC agenda.
That is a very good point, dear Julie. I am an Obama supporter, but I really like John Edwards and think that his influence on this race has been good for the field as a whole. I am entirely in favor of his staying in the race for as long as he sees fit.
Lariokie wrote on January 29, 2008 12:33 PM:Liam
Okay, what "platform" is Obama running on? Can you tell me what his core beliefs are? Change? What, like taking money from convicted frauds and huge corporations? Is that the change you have in mind? So what has Obama said that allows you to say, "he will look out for the little guy", or "he will work hard for universal health care", or "he will reinstitute taxes on the wealthy and the corporations so they pay their fair share"? What does he stand for beside this slippery notion of "change" and "all getting along together"? Do you think he is going to be able to get the Republicans to "get along with a progressive agenda? If so, would you mind sharing whatever it is you are smoking?
Primary races are all about delegates and not about the number of votes. If you think the electoral college is a scam, take a look at the caucus process. It is all about deal making and power brokering. I believe Edwards is the only real populist progressive in the race now that Kucinich is gone. If he can drag one of the MEDIA DARLINGS along toward a real progressive platform, then I say power to him.
Those who want to hold on to the idea that these crazy primaries and caucuses are somehow democratically representative can continue to play with yourselves if you like. But don't be terribly surprised by reality when it comes knocking.
bnb wrote on January 29, 2008 12:49 PM:Liam:
" why should people vote for him! After all it is a primary campaign to vote for the person you want to see become the next President."
Exactly. I want Edwards. I see no value in voting for someone because he or she will win.
The only thing that would make me change my vote is policy changes like if Edwards said he wouldn't leave Iraq.
There's a lot of Bush voters who wish they could get their winning votes back.
Look at it this way. Edwards in the race evens the odds for real change. With Edwards in, its two against two. Hillary and Bill against Barack and John. Agents of the hackneyed Democratic Party structure and agenda against agents for blowing all that up. Obama is too naive to go toe to toe with the Clinton political machine (though he is quickly learning what a rotten gang he's up against) but with Edwards alongside they have both made the anti-Clinton case extremely well. Ideally they will end up on the same ticket. No way that ticket loses in November. The Hill/Bill lashup is showing itself for the lowdown nastiness we all suspected just below the surface.
Goldspinner wrote on January 29, 2008 1:03 PM:Concerning Edwards, this column speaks for many of us:
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/story/12302.html
Obviously milorad didn't make law review.
Anon wrote on January 29, 2008 1:11 PM:A vote for Edwards is the only vote for substantive change when it comes to any of the major issues facing our nation. Edwards is the only real, live Democrat in the race.
Edwards is the only reason that Hillary and Barak aren't waffling even worse on the war, health care, you name it. They don't really believe we are in a struggle for the future of the nation that pits the interests of the people against predatory wealth. They think we can just tweak things here and there and things will magically get better. They are wrong. They have been wrong from the beginning.
So despite what the media is trying to force down our throats, everyone with a brain who loves their country needs to understand that the more delegates John Edwards gets, the more clout there is for the positions he has run on. It isn't about or for him personally. It is about the things that those of us who support him believe need to be front and center. In short, it is for us all---our kids particularly.
So, for all those who belong to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, for all those who want to reverse the decades of surrender and capitulation by Democrats to corporate desires, and for all those who want to see a return to an economy that works for us all and not just for the rich, corporate interests:
Vote for John Edwards even if he isn't going to "win".
We all win if his positions have enough power to decide the nomination or perhaps even to keep him in the runnning so that he could emerge the nominee in case of deadlock between the two centerist candidates.
phil james wrote on January 29, 2008 1:21 PM:Populist: (n.) definition: A politician who wants to take away 15 of your 47 Mercedes leaving you with only 32.
Heretic wrote on January 29, 2008 1:22 PM:That's interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that what Edwards wants to broker is the party platform in exchange for his delegates. I know Obamaites are desperate for him to get out so they can peel off his voters. But besides the thorn it puts in their sides, it is important to me that some of his views be incorporated. While I don't trust that Edwards is genuine, he is the only one of the three who has been talking my language. If some of his anti-corporate agenda is forced into the platform, that will be a major and welcome coup, IMO. Ironically, his pro-working class message is much more in line with Hillary's supporters. Working class folks overwhelmingly support her over Obama, and I bet she is more likely to agree to parts of his message. Obama's whole wishy-washy negotiate with the enemy strategy (meaning the repugs) does not really position him well to take on corporate America. A major reason that his supporters really need to wake up and see how worthless their candidate is.
Liam wrote on January 29, 2008 1:26 PM:The Edwards National campaign manager has revealed that they do not expect to win the nomination.
Take them at their word. Don't waste your vote on someone who does not expect to win, and who finished a weak third in his home state.
Cast your vote for either Hillary or Obama. The process is about selecting a winner, and not about catering to and coddling a weak also ran.
Those of you who think Edwards is going to morph into a convention tiger are dreaming. He is all talk, but no substance.
Remember when were all looking forward to watching the great trial lawyer destroy Dick Cheney.
Cheney made him look pathetic.
Edwards is just a political windsock.
He voted for most of what he now claims is terrible. He did not even discover his Iraq war vote was a mistake until long after the 2004 race was lost.
Vote for Hillary or Obama, and let us get on with business of taking back the White House. Edwards had a shot to shape a ticket in 2004, and he turned out to about as useful as tits on a bull.
Anonymous wrote on January 29, 2008 1:29 PM:Heretic, you're right that Obama's negotiate with the enemy strategy is weak (to be charitable). Further, the Obama people don't understand despite it having been repeatedly pointed out that the only thing that stands between Hillary and 50% of the delegates is John Edwards: not Obama. The stronger Edwards is, the better it is for Obama, but the koolaid crowd thinks otherwise and won't hear anything that contradicts their fantasies.
The point I would depart from you on (and it's only slight) is this: the "platform" doesn't mean dick. If Edwards can force whoever becomes the nominee to take clear, unambiguous positions on the issues that matter such as class, poverty, war, and so on then it is well worth it all for everyone who supports Edwards and the issues he has focused on.
phil james wrote on January 29, 2008 1:36 PM:Edwards deferred to the Kerry people in the general election. He wasn't running his campaign; he was trying to align what he said and did with what Kerry's people wanted. He did not want to shortcut the recount issue in Ohio for example, but Kerry, the Big Wuss, did (just like Gore, the even Bigger Wuss did in 2000) That's what you do when you have the VP slot on the ticket. Now, the fact that the Kerry people were flat out idiots and couldn't campaign their way out of a paper bag AND they had a basically stuffed shirt as a Presidential candidate were problems not of Edwards making. Edwards did not lose the 2004 race, Kerry and company deserve all the credit for that.
Win Harrison wrote on January 29, 2008 2:02 PM:Events are happening fast with regard to the economy, and I never forget the Bush Administration's rabid penchant for war. I worry that Obama is peaking with his hype campaign, and that the US is rushing through the primaries in all the wrong uninformed shallow ways. I do not want the Clintons back in the White House. So a brokered convention (don't forget the Florida/Michigan "unseated delegates" issue)seems more than possible. I still do not have a feel for who Barrack Obama is, and fear some nasty disappointing surprises. So the idea of a brokered convention - a second chance, and one much closer to the general election - seems a good and exciting one.
I will be voting for John Edwards on the Feb. 9th Washington State caucus, and again in the advisory primary on the 19th.
Liam wrote on January 29, 2008 2:22 PM:Try not to rewrite history. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. John Edwards refused to play the attack dog role that John Kerry wanted him to during the 2004 presidential campaign. He also refused to renounce his Iraq war vote and come out against the Iraq occupation while he was running for Vice President.
That is the real truth, and one of main reason's why Senator Kerry did not endorse him this time. He found out in 2004 that Edwards was unwilling to follow the Kerry campaign wishes, but freelanced, often against the wishes of the Kerry team.
Dick Cheney made Edwards look like a chastened schoolboy. Has he had a backbone transplant since then?
Julie wrote on January 29, 2008 2:48 PM:John Edwards refused to play the attack dog role that John Kerry wanted him to during the 2004 presidential campaign. He also refused to renounce his Iraq war vote and come out against the Iraq occupation while he was running for Vice President.Liam, Kerry did not renounce his Iraq war vote, either, in 2004. Further,literally hours after Edwards spoke to Democrats in Ohio and reiterated Kerry's promise to fight to see every last vote was counted correctly, Kerry repudiated Edwards' statement by (a) conceding to Bush and (b) announcing he was not going to contest the Ohio results. If memory serves, Kerry was in Davos when the Congress reconvened in January 2005 and Senator Boxer sponsored a house member's petition to take another look at Ohio. So much for fighting.
That is the real truth, and one of main reason's why Senator Kerry did not endorse him this time. He found out in 2004 that Edwards was unwilling to follow the Kerry campaign wishes, but freelanced, often against the wishes of the Kerry team.Not following the wishes of the Kerry team is something that could be worn as a badge of honor. Kind of like being on Nixon's enemies list.
phil james, I think you're on to something: Obama and Edwards vs both Clintons.
And yes, the platform is almost always ignored. But the general direction of the discussion and the framing of the issues is what is critically important. Having some clout in determining those two items, having a seat at that table, that matters.
phil james wrote on January 29, 2008 4:20 PM:Liam:
So you're saying that, despite the fact that Kerry chose Edwards as his running mate, they disagreed fundamentally on campaign strategy. Kerry was so busy, presumably windsurfing, that he never bothered to resolve those issues BEFORE he selected him as his running mate or chose someone else? I guess that shows what kind of leadership Kerry would have given us. You know, the same kind mindless Dubya gave us by choosing Darth Cheney.
I guess I'm a minority opinion in that I didn't think Edwards did all that bad a job against Cheney. He certainly was better in nailing him on factual inconsistencies (previous meeting aside), than Kerry did to Bush.
But that's neither here nor there.
What I do think is odd, however, is Obama supporters grousing about Edwards' debate performance. While I am favorably disposed to Obama, I gotta say that nothing I've seen in the debates so far gives me much confidence in his ability to defend himself against Republican debaters.
phil james wrote on January 29, 2008 4:47 PM:Let's just say this. Edwards would not have to change much, if any, of his campaign points to directly challenge a nasty Thug candidate. Obama will almost certainly be thrown off his "why can't we all just get along?" no-fault politics rhetoric going head-to-head against McCain or Romney, not to mention the swift-boating he will get in the GE will be much more outrageous than the swift-boating the Clintons have thrown his way so far.
debcoop wrote on January 29, 2008 6:25 PM:In SC John Edwards got 18-19% with lots of campaigning on the ground. There is a 15% threshold to get one delegate in a CD. I think that's a much harder threshold to meet than you would think in 22 states. I think he could easily not make that threshold in the vast majorites of CD's in the country.
There are 214 Congressional districts in the 22 states of Super Tuesday. Edwards now has 26 delegates. To get to 200 he would need to make the 15% threshold in almost everyone one of them. It just doesn't seem likely. Indeed it is more likely that he won't make the 15% threshold in any of them. Does he have the money to run ads or the field staff to run a field campaign, or even enough grassroots organiztion to run some insurgency campaign. Having not broken through in SC it is not likely that his 18-19% will go lower.
I like and admire Edwards, his message and what he's done for moving the conversation to the left. It doesn't seem likely.
Charlie wrote on January 29, 2008 6:46 PM:I'm not sure if Edwards thinks he doesn't have a shot at the presidency, but have come to believe that he does not. I would think that if/when he realizes he doesn't have a shot, he will stay in the race for the delegates. They keep saying that Clinton and Obama aren't going to have enough delegates and the nomination will be decided at the convention. Edwards knows both of the other two would chop their left nut off to have those delegates. If he's smart, he'll trade the delegates for a VP job. I'd personally love to have Edwards as Obama's VP. I really like him, just think he's a little too gung-ho to be president. I agree with Obama that Democrats need to start working with Republicans, not fighting them like Edwards and Clinton want to do. We've been fighting them forever to no avail, what makes them think it'll work? On the other hand, we've SEEN bipartisan cooperation work. The choice should be obvious, yeah they suck and we don't agree, but I work with people I don't like, it's called a job. And the better you can co-exist, the more productive and efficient you'll be. Again, DUH!
And as far as Obama being knocked off his game by the Rep nominee in the general, yeah, they may raise some points that throw him off, but he can do it too. Nearly 80% of Americans oppose the war. No Democrat can compete with Obama on that issue. The reps want to stay in Iraq, Obama wants to pull out, America wants to pull out, he'll have fun throwing that in their faces. If the reps constant talk about the 'dangers of pulling out' were valid, wouldn't more of us support this war? No one supports it because no one believes we can't pull out safely. America sees it as an oil war, not a national security issue. Unless they can change America's mind, they're gonna take heat on the Iraq debate.
Plus I know that I, for one, can't stand to listen to McCain or Romney speak, people love to listen to Barack. He's got more than a fair shot in the general.
Jane wrote on January 29, 2008 11:50 PM:I like John Edwards and his issues. He is my second choice but if he stays in he will be a in a position to determine which of the other two becomes our nominee: a choice which I think is better left to the voters.
spencer wrote on January 30, 2008 9:49 AM:His national campaign manager is admitting that Edwards is no longer capable of winning the nomination, so why should people vote for him! After all it is a primary campaign to vote for the person you want to see become the next President.
You answer your own question. I knew going into yesterday's primary that Edwards had basically no chance of winning. But he's the candidate I wanted to see become the next president. I don't want Obama or Clinton or Romney or McCain. I want Edwards.
Unfortunately for me, it looks like I'm not going to get who I want. This always seems to happen to me, for some reason . . . Tsongas, Bradley, Dean. Oh well. That's democracy.
