• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

John Edwards Campaign Deathwatch

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,018
Location
Yokohama, Japan
So does Edwards drop out now? He's the Southerner in the race, but he can't even compete in a Southern state. Even if he stays in, the news media will increasingly be ignoring him and focusing on Obama and the Clintons.

ETA: Does he have any chips to cash in by endorsing one of the two remaining candidates?
 
Last edited:
His campaign was based on winning Iowa again. He now seems to be.... well... hell.. can anyone tell us what Edwards is doing and what his strategy is?
 
Looking at the exit polls in South Carolina, he basically won the white, over 30 vote, and probably won heavily among white men over 30. It is unfortunate for him that there are few of those in the Democratic Party. I did find it interesting that his share of the vote rose pretty consistently by income; apparently his class warfare rhetoric works best with the wealthy.
 
Brainster said:
Looking at the exit polls in South Carolina, he basically won the white, over 30 vote, and probably won heavily among white men over 30. It is unfortunate for him that there are few of those in the Democratic Party. I did find it interesting that his share of the vote rose pretty consistently by income; apparently his class warfare rhetoric works best with the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Isn't that odd? Here's the MSNBC exit polls with breakdown by income. I suppose that wealthy Democrats don't vote their own economic interest in the first place, or they'd presumably be Republicans. Or it may be that what candidates actually say about the issues doesn't matter as much as image and symbolism.
 
Although an Edwards supporter, I fully recognize he's not going to win...or even be a serious consideration from here on out. The only reason I can see for him to stay in the race is the hope that he can play a pivitol role in the final selection by getting a place in the new Administration or forcing the new Administration to agree to a policy that he advocates for.
 
I'd like to see him drop out (cos he's not going to win, I'd rather he won) and support Obama, if he can get his supporters to support Obama then Obama will have an easier time getting the nomination and he might have a shot at being his running mate by sucking up to him.
 
corplinx said:
.... well... hell.. can anyone tell us what Edwards is doing and what his strategy is?
Click to expand...

Progressive liberals wouldn't tolerate him dropping out quite yet and he wants to hold onto the hope of playing kingmaker with his delegates if it's close enough. It will be interesting to see what Edwards' angle is if Obama falls behind by a significant margin after Super Tuesday.
 
Last edited:
BTW, can candidates actually control their delegates and give them to another candidate in exchange for a cabinet position or VP selection? IOW, do delegates automatically follow their candidate's orders? The effect of an endorsement is vague, but actually being able to send x delegates to another candidate would seem to be a big influence.
 
Puppycow said:
BTW, can candidates actually control their delegates and give them to another candidate in exchange for a cabinet position or VP selection? IOW, do delegates automatically follow their candidate's orders? The effect of an endorsement is vague, but actually being able to send x delegates to another candidate would seem to be a big influence.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge if a candidate who has won delegates drops out and endorses another candidate, the committed delegates they won are still committed to vote for them at the convention. The primary and convention process is quite difficult to understand when you take a casual look at it, but when you dig into it and study the history of party politics in it becomes easier to understand how we arrived at the current system, step by step since the first primaries in the early 20th century.

What needs to be looked into are superdelegates and the possibility in both parities of a brokered convention.
 
Though I support Edwards for president, I recognize that this was the cementing what was already pretty clear. SC was the only state he won in 2004. On the other hand, I don't think he has any obligation to drop out. He can stay in as long as his supporters and he himself wish to fund it. If he's still in the ballot in NY, I'll vote for him.
 
Unlike the Republican primaries, which are mostly winner-take-all, the Democrats are all proportional representation, with a 15% minimum. So if he keeps getting 15% or more, he'll be winning delegates, so it makes sense to continue, but if his support drops below the 15% threshold, especially if it gets down in single digits, then I think it's time to throw in the towel.
 
Edwards basically moved too far to the left in the early stages of his campaign with his class warfare rhetoric, and,although he won support from the ideological hardcore ,in the view of a lot of Democratics he moved so far to the left that he will be unable to move back to the center for he general election.
And a series of gaffes did not help him either.
I doubt he will be a serious contender for VP.It would look too much like the Dems have ran out of viable candidates.
 
After he had to live through Kerry's decision to cave without a fight, I seriously doubt he began with an internal eye on the VP. And now it is even less likely to happen. What does he bring to HRC? She's probably going to go with Clark or Webb to offset the elephant's claim of weak on military. And what does he bring to Obama? He can't even guarantee to deliver his own home state to the electoral college. It might be an outside shot, but I doubt it.
 
SezMe said:
Although an Edwards supporter, I fully recognize he's not going to win...or even be a serious consideration from here on out. The only reason I can see for him to stay in the race is the hope that he can play a pivitol role in the final selection by getting a place in the new Administration or forcing the new Administration to agree to a policy that he advocates for.
Click to expand...
Same here, for the most part. However, there is one other factor. His wife has incurable cancer and he promised her he would stay in the race. Is he "doing it for Elizabeth"? Maybe. Maybe for a little policy twisting and voice on the platform. Maybe both. I still have more respect for him than any of the other candidates, but his ship has sailed.
 
Tricky said:
I still have more respect for him than any of the other candidates, but his ship has sailed.
Click to expand...

More respect than for the other candidates?
I don't get it. Here's what a Bona Fide progressive, Russ Feingold thinks about Phoney Baloney John Edwards' campaign
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
Click to expand...

 
Feingold (thanks for the link) makes a valid point. But, like the Iraq war vote, Edwards can claim a change of position based on new info. That he's changed his position so many times is an issue, I'll acknowledge that. That his change in position to reflect my own perspective, of course, gives him a bye that I would not give to some other politician. So sue me for being a hypocrite. :)

The video is a cheap shot, just like the $400 haircut is. Ever since JFK creamed Nixon on TV, every candidate has had to look good on TV. They all have makeup people.

Did you see Kathrine Sebelious (sp?) responding for the Dems to the State of the Union speech? I figure her makeup had to be removed by a jackhammer later that evening. But if she had not been perfectly coiffed, the pundits would have had a field day raking her over the coals no matter what the substance of her speech.

It's not fair, but it is what it is.
 
SezMe said:
The video is a cheap shot, just like the $400 haircut is. Ever since JFK creamed Nixon on TV, every candidate has had to look good on TV. They all have makeup people.
Click to expand...

Hence why I believe if you put Hillary and Obama in a 1 on 1 debate where they both argued 50/50, I believe Obama would win for HDTV owners. Hillary looks like a california raisin in a blonde wig on HD.
 
I don't have HD, corp, so I cannot respond. But I did see Obama on MSNBC and he did not look all that good in ordinary resolution.

But shame on me and you. Are we going to elect our Prez based on how (s)he looks? If so, let's just coronate Mitt and move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom