NYT: Edwards Camp Doesn't Expect To Win Even One Primary

Comments (35)

jl55378008 wrote on January 21, 2008 11:06 AM:

So when will the networks stop letting him participate in debates?

John McCutchen wrote on January 21, 2008 11:14 AM:

Edwards should have had a brokered convention as at least a fall back goal months ago.

If his strategists are scrambling in surprise this cannot augur well for his chances of getting enough delegates to be a player

Surely he'll have enough federal matching funds to hang on

hello_world wrote on January 21, 2008 11:14 AM:

jl55378008, they won't. Speaking as a cynic, despite Edwards' tanking numbers, a debate between a black man, a white woman, and a white, Southern man draws larger ratings than the black man and white woman alone. Personally, I feel that Edwards has earned the right to campaign as long as his money lasts, but after SC I'm not sure how he expects to make up any ground. He's got no organization in place anywhere else.

Unfortunately for Edwards, he's rapidly joining the Thompson's and 9u11iani's as repudiated candidates.

Genghis wrote on January 21, 2008 11:18 AM:

If he performs decently in SC, then he should be able to hang on at least through super tuesday. I think the question of whether he can pull it off depends more on how close the Obama-Clinton race is.

jl55378008 wrote on January 21, 2008 11:19 AM:

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I don't care who debates, but I think at this point Edwards is serving his own ego more than anything else. He has as much of a chance of success as Kucinich, except on his way out he's dragging down whoever he can, whether it's Hillary after Iowa or Obama now. It's pathetic, but it's also frustrating to watch.

SLKRR wrote on January 21, 2008 11:20 AM:

The brokered convention strategy is a "fairy-tale." ;-)

Edwards will get some delegates, but he is going to be running up against that 15% barrier in a lot of the Feb. 5 states. He won't get enough to affect the outcome of the convention.

Genghis wrote on January 21, 2008 11:26 AM:

In a previous thread, I argued that Edwards staying in the race won't hurt Obama if Edwards ultimately endorses him b/c Edwards likely has more influence over his delegates than over his supporters.

But I've since learned that some states, such as CA, have a 15% rule, which means that if a candidate doesn't receive at least 15% in a district, they don't get any delegates in that district. It seems to me that this could actually hurt Obama b/c in a district where Edwards misses the threshold, his votes are lost.

(I am assuming that more Edwards supporters prefer Obama as a second choice. This is based on polls and has been addressed in a previous thread. Please don't shout at me if you are an Obama-hating Edwards supporter; I know that not all Edwards supporters are Obama supporters. If you have poll data showing that my assumption is incorrect, please provide it.)

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:45 AM:

John McCutchen.....you are my source of humor all day long. Edwards is placing himself alongside Clinton for VP not Obama.

anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:50 AM:

Anyone else noticed that North Carolina has 115 pledged votes? That's half of what New York has.

Just saying, the delegate strategy makes sense, even with the 15% viability threshold.

Genghis wrote on January 21, 2008 11:52 AM:

I really don't think that Clinton and Edwards like each other. I'm sure that Clinton would do it if it meant that nomination, but Edwards is always defending Obama against Clinton attacks. If he gets to be kingmaker, and both candidates offer him the same deal, I expect him to go Obama.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:13 PM:

I'd LOVE to see a brokered convention.
I was a Biden supporter,switched to Edwards. What's a mother to do?

grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 12:30 PM:

I'd love to see Edwards join with Obama at the convention, and obviously that is the way it would go, but...I'm not convinced that he will have enough votes to make the difference. I don't know though...maybe. Having him around actually should help Obama in the South, splitting the racist white vote (and yes, if you look at the polls it is obvious that even many Democrats in the South are racist, sad but true) with Hillary, so she doesn't get all of the racist white vote to herself to boost her against Obama. Whatever, I guess we'll see how it will actually play out...for now I'm happy with Edwards splitting the racist southern vote with Hillary, so fine. He was dreaming if he ever thought he had a shot at winning the nomination though, and I've said that all along.

Jason wrote on January 21, 2008 12:40 PM:

but I think at this point Edwards is serving his own ego more than anything else. He has as much of a chance of success as Kucinich, except on his way out he's dragging down whoever he can, whether it's Hillary after Iowa or Obama now

B.S. Do some research before spouting off, please. Edwards clearly prefers Obama to Hillary, has said as much, and his presence in the race is the only thing standing between Hillary and the nomination. If Edwards drops out, this thing is over immediately, as Edwards voters flock to Hillary and Obama falls off the face of the earth.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:53 PM:

"So when will the networks stop letting him participate in debates?"

yeah, get him out of here. We don't want debates about issues. We want to talk about "bringing everyone together" and apple pie.

Genghis wrote on January 21, 2008 12:54 PM:

All right, I quoted it before, but I'll do it again. Read this article:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jUCn4ZvkB0oIgwhm3TveaYN9rkZgD8U4114G0

Noteworthy quotes:

Indeed, Edwards voters in Iowa favored Obama over Clinton as their second choice by a nearly two-to-one margin in caucus-night surveys. And Edwards supporters in New Hampshire reported they had a far more favorable impression of Obama than of Clinton, according election-night surveys there.

And conversely:

A mid-December survey of voters nationally conducted for the AP and Yahoo News found that Edwards supporters split about evenly between Clinton and Obama when asked which candidate would be their second choice. Clinton and Obama each were the second choices of about 27 percent of Edwards supporters. Another 28 percent were unsure who would be their second choice, and the rest were thinly scattered among other candidates.

So no, there is no evidence suggesting that Edwards supporters will go flocking to Clinton and some conflicting evidence that they will go to Obama. Again, if anyone has any other data, please share it.

The other thing to consider is that scenario is not that Edwards just drops off the face of the earth but that he drops out and endorses Obama, which will have an impact on his supporters choices. If Obama invites him onto the ticket, it will have an even bigger impact.

audit the polls wrote on January 21, 2008 12:59 PM:

"So when will the networks stop letting him participate in debates?"

Where does it mention networks in the constitution?
The elections and the debates belong to the people, not the networks.

bnb wrote on January 21, 2008 1:03 PM:

The Times used to be a great paper. Now it's quoting unnamed aides who say Edwards will lose. MSM sucks in this country.

It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 21, 2008 1:44 PM:

First, no established politician who values his own long term prospects will allow him/herself to be put in the position of VP for Clinton. It should be clear to anyone savvy that Bill C will be the influential "second in command" voice in a HRC administration. This is not like when JFK chose LBJ as a running mate and LBJ reluctantly accepted. Expect the Clinton VP choice to already be made and to be more in the Dan Quayle model (seen but not heard) -- probably from someplace like maybe Florida to bolster votes in a critical state.

Second, it's time for all Democrats to think about the long-term prospects of the party. It's been a long time since US politics has had such a destabilizing convergence of economy, energy, and no clear leadership. Again, go back to the 1856 election and watch how the Whigs imploded and the Dems split, giving the "3rd party" candidate in the 1860 election the victory.

As someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, it's time to make the Clintons move on: for the party, which can ill-afford to lose this presidential election when it is for the asking and for the country, which can ill-afford the notion of concentrations of power than become entrenched and corrupt. In that sense, the Clintons are no different than the Bushes. Many of W's dealings were aided by the contacts that GHWB made while president (and before) -- leading to massive foreign corruption. The Clintons are a set-up for the same situation.

It's time for people to recognize that the world is very complex and that all politicians are human. Regardless of how pure the Clintons are (and I don't think they are), it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely. HRC can still fight for the country in one of the most exclusive jobs in the country indefinitely; from the Senate.

I urge everyone to vote for the candidate in the primary that has the most change of derailing the "inevitability" of a HRC run. Already, too many people decided not to run because of her perceived invincibility. This is not representative democracy, it's a sense of entitlement and Bill C on the campaign trail shows little understanding that as an ex-President, he is a public servant for life now of the American people, representing everyone... rather than just his wife.

Terje wrote on January 21, 2008 2:35 PM:

As a couple of posters have mentioned, the challenge for Edwards in this strategy would be the ability to get 15% and pick up delegates. National party rules require the 15% threshold everywhere in the country, so he would have to do much much better than he did in Nevada to remain politically relevant.

If he is serious about staying in the race, he should probably pick a small handful of states for Feb 5th and focus his time and resources there in order to have an impact (Oklamona and Tennessee seem like the most obvious candidates - states he might even be able to win with intensive campaigning). He could also select a few other states and see if he could get delegates there (primaries in Alabama and Georgia, caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota).

If he managed to perform credibly in a few states on Feb 5th AND there is no clear Clinton/Obama victor that day, he could then cherry pick potentially friendly states in the post-Feb 5th schedule (Feb 12 in VA, March 4th Ohio and Texas, April 22 in PA, May 6 NC and Indiana, May 13 WVa, May 20th KY) and keep picking up delegates.

My gut tells me that either Clinton or Obama will break out and be the clear winner by the beginning of March at the latest, in which case Edwards gets squeezed out entirely.

But he's got to put a couple of decent performances on the board on Feb 5th to be able to receive attention needed to keep getting 15% and picking up delegates.

(There is also a bit of tradition of candidates staying in the race after it has essentially been wrapped up and accumulating delegates - attempting to capitalize on a bit of "buyer's remorse" within the party -- think of Jerry Brown in 1976 with Carter and in 1992 with Clinton. I'm not sure that's Edwards' ideal role model, but it is plausible enough)

Wordie wrote on January 21, 2008 2:38 PM:

I'm waiting to hear what the Edwards' campaign says about the NYT piece. Is it accurate? Perhaps Edwards will clarify in the debate tonight, or in his appearance tomorrow on Letterman. Until then, I can't help but wonder if this is just more anti-Edwards media spin.

rssrai wrote on January 21, 2008 3:22 PM:

There are a lot of us voters who dislike Obama and Hillary, and don't think either one has a chance in hell. I am sorry, but the dems are going down the loser road again. I have already voted for JRE in Florida, and I ain't going to let the MSM or anyone else tell me how to vote and what votes count. So you Obama and Hillary supporters go suck on that.

Genghis wrote on January 21, 2008 3:30 PM:

Terje writes

If he is serious about staying in the race, he should probably pick a small handful of states for Feb 5th and focus his time and resources there in order to have an impact (Oklamona and Tennessee seem like the most obvious candidates - states he might even be able to win with intensive campaigning). He could also select a few other states and see if he could get delegates there (primaries in Alabama and Georgia, caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota).

If he managed to perform credibly in a few states on Feb 5th AND there is no clear Clinton/Obama victor that day, he could then cherry pick potentially friendly states in the post-Feb 5th schedule (Feb 12 in VA, March 4th Ohio and Texas, April 22 in PA, May 6 NC and Indiana, May 13 WVa, May 20th KY) and keep picking up delegates.

Thanks, Terje. Sharpest piece of analysis I've seen in comments section in a while.

I would add that timing is of the essence for Edwards. To maximize his influence, he may not want to wait all the way until the convention, at which point it's a sheer numbers game. As you predict, the outcome may be sealed by well before the convention. But if Edwards goes out sooner, his endorsement could provide a big momentum boost to his candidate of choice and with the outcome still in doubt, he has more bargaining power.

My gut tells me that, if it's still a close race after Feb 5th, Edwards will drop out and endorse Obama, and there will be heavy hints, though no public confirmation, that he'll be Obama's VP selection.

Genghis wrote on January 21, 2008 3:36 PM:

Oops, the second paragraph from Terje is supposed to be quoted as well. I didn't mean to appropriate your comment.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 4:28 PM:

I think John Edwards will drop out of the race after Florida (even though no delegate seats will be given out).

stinger wrote on January 21, 2008 4:38 PM:

If only the MSM and blog commenters had given Edwards' policy positions as much analysis and bandwidth as they are now devoting to telling him to drop out....

daCascadian wrote on January 21, 2008 5:49 PM:

Edwards has said, in public, that he has no interest in the VP slot. Believe him or don`t.

I suspect that he would want to be appointed AG in a Democratic administration. But that is just a guess on my part.

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

colonpowwow wrote on January 21, 2008 7:01 PM:

If the Edwards supporters are anything like their candidate and his campaign vs. his actual record, they will say that they favor Obama, but they will vote for Hillary.

staugust1 wrote on January 21, 2008 7:24 PM:

Anyone else irritated that Edwards is continuing his vanity run with public funds?

I've always checked off that some of my tax money go to finance campaigns but probably won't do that this year ...

Joe wrote on January 21, 2008 7:44 PM:

This "vanity campaign" b.s. is annoying.

To my thinking, and I can be as wrong as others sometimes are, is that he is pushing a message of fighting for progressive values, esp. economic populism. Barack Obama wants unity; Clinton wants to be selected based on experience and establish cred.

These are different messages. And, the affect of the third simply is not only told by vote count, though (Nevada aside) the numbers are micro votes ala Kucinich. This is not a matter of "vanity" but conviction, partially based on the egotistical sentiment of all candidates that they are particularly special.

If you don't want another voice outside of the establishment big money backers sorts to have a shot if only to bring a voice to the table, don't support public financing.

Joe wrote on January 21, 2008 7:50 PM:

I meant to say that Edwards has NOT received microvotes ala Kucinich overall, even if he had low numbers in Nevada.

A vote of let's say 15-20% won't win you the state, but in this "bye bye Edwards" environment, having the drive to vote for him in those numbers is still meaningful.

space wrote on January 21, 2008 8:01 PM:

I also find the "vanity campaign" thing annoying.

But I think it says more about the people levelling the accusation than it does about Edwards.

Jim wrote on January 21, 2008 8:30 PM:

Oh, well, with Edwards gone so am I. I mean, I'm a Nu Yawkah, so who do I vote for on Super Tuesday? Any others out here planning to skip this circus?

ktroyer wrote on January 21, 2008 9:42 PM:

it seems unfair to pin edwards' persistence on vanity. clearly none of them are short on ego, but the guy has been talking about important issues from day one, including the war, health care, poverty, trade policy, corporate taxation and regulation.

to me, edwards would have done better in the '04 general election than kerry did, and he would do better this time around than either obama or clinton. but obviously he will not be nominee, so it's irrelevant.

edwards prefers obama to HRC, and intentionally or not, he has protected and bolstered obama at key points. i would love to see him as VP or AG or anything else in an obama administration. i'm tired of the clintons. the MLK/LBJ/fairytale stuff showed that when the chips are down, it's personal ambition before all else, with the two of them. if we didn't already know that.

my problem with HRC is that she has become so deeply, reflexively conservative and is so afraid of appearing weak on defense or foreign policy or anything else. she can't even admit she was wrong about the war. just say it, 'it was a dumb war. none of us should have voted for it.' and to vote for terrorist classification of Iranian revolutionary guard (or whatever it's called), it's almost enough to vindicate nader's stance about there not being a dime's worth of difference b/w Dems & GOP.

i agree w/ dick morris' interpretation of the HRC tears. tears born of self-pity, narcissism, frustrated sense of entitlement -- almost kind of nixon-like. she and giuliani both remind me a bit of nixon, which in her case is ironic, due not only to her party affiliation but also her role as congressional staffer, or whatever she was, during watergate.

anyway, i wish edwards would be president, but i'm fine w/ obama. and the truth is, if it's hillary, that's okay too. let's just jam a Dem in there one way or the other and get started reversing the 8-year Bush catastrophe, esp. the war, its INSANE price tag, and U.S. image internationally. the thought of following 8 years of bush w/ either a huckabee or romney administration is beyond the pale.

it's the democrats' to lose this time. which is not to say they can't lose. but they start with a clear advantage, whoever the nominee is.

daniel155 wrote on January 22, 2008 3:10 AM:

For these Edwards deciding a brokered convention scenarios to work have to assume that Edwards remains viable which is a big assumption.

Let's assume he does. Edwards has no control over who his delegates support other than to endorse a candidate and to request that his delegates support that candidate.

Like anyone, the delegates have thought about their second choice and have their preferences. Edwards would be lucky to get sixty percent compliance with his endorsement.

In Nevada, the Culinary Union endorsed Obama but many of their members went for Clinton. I don't think the Edwards' delegates are robots assuming he actually wins a significant block.

libelian wrote on January 23, 2008 4:43 PM:

There are few important things to keep in mind when considering coverage of John Edwards "vanity campaign":

1. Statistically, this is still an open race. Constitutionally, this is still an open race. A couple of caucuses and one primary should not our next President make.

2. Reporting on Nevada has consistently maintained the *inaccurate* line that Edwards won "4%" of the state's vote. He did not. He won 4% of the state's *delegates*. He won double digits (somewhere between 12-15%) of the state's votes, in spite of his lack of large donors or block endorsements.

3. The above fits into a pattern of misrepresenting, under-reporting, and deliberate, if sometimes subtle, attack that has pervaded the MSM's coverageof John Edwards, his message, and his campaign. The New York Times is among the worst offenders, losing no opportunity to shade stories about Edwards with unflattering details and seemingly inconsequential "descriptors" that create a negative impression for their readers.

Try, for example, comparing the respective "Candidate Profiles" that the Times offers for Senators Edwards and McCain: in Edwards' profile, the NYT includes "unsuccessful candidate for President" and "unsuccessful candidate for Vice President" in 2004. The standard formula here is "candidate" - obviously Senator Edwards was "unsuccessful" - and the adjective is a subtle and unnecessary insult. In McCain's profile, however, there is NO mention of his "unsuccessful" candidacy for Presidency in 2000 - no mention of his candidacy at all (perhaps because it might remind us that he lost to our current President)?

In contrast, the Washington Post describes Edwards as having been a "Democratic presidential candidate, 2004" and uses the equivalent language for McCain: "Republican presidential candidate, 2000." By way of further comparison, the Baltimore Sun describes Edwards as the "Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004", while McCain is given as "Presidential candidate in 2000 election." Both of these papers are obviously much more balanced in their language, and much more balanced in their treatment of the respective candidates.

While it may seem that I am being overly picky about a word, I want to make clear that this is only one example of the Times's continuing efforts to denigrate and dismiss Edwards. While they have every right to do so on their editorial pages and in the form of official endorsements, as a reader of the putative paper of record, I resent the attempt to influence the democratic process in such an underhanded way.

I wouldn't trust anything the Times wrote about Senator Edwards, period. The more I learn about Edwards's policies, and the more I see the "Clinton/Obama Deathmatch '08" reportage pushed at the American public, the more certain I become who the true Democrat in this race is.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)