View Story | 644 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
but, Obama is reaching parity.
I cannot foresee an Edwards victory at this point, but still, I'm voting my conscience.
My logical side is confident that he'll give his delegates to Obama, so it's a win-win.
Still, I'll need you to keep on loving me, Granny! :)
:::::
Me! | John McCain
by nowheredesign on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:07:41 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
support for Edwards there. If it is one of the many with a 15% threshold, and his support is lower than that, then I'm afraid he won't have delegates to give. Just a thought ---
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
by Wee Mama on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:18:46 AM PDT
Join the College Kossacks on Facebook. Hat Thief
by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:19:54 AM PDT
caucuses. And more to come the rest of February.
One Million Strong --- Join up!
by psericks on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:11:19 AM PDT
He'll get his 15 as of yet.
But, good point and I'll keep an eye open.
:)
:::
by nowheredesign on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:23:45 AM PDT
Imagine a brokered convention where Edwards gives his delegates to Hillary.
<boom>
"They're trying to fool you. They're trying to scare you. And they're not telling you the truth." Obama '08
by bawbie on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:21:16 AM PDT
by nowheredesign on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:26:47 AM PDT
a firecracker!
Barack Obama -- The President we were promised as kids!
by Jimdotz on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:40:39 AM PDT
But I don't think he would. I think he's closer to Obama than to Hillary.
The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin
by Korkenzieher on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:43:38 AM PDT
by bawbie on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:50:06 AM PDT
you'd better vote for Obama.
As we learned in New Hampshire.
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:12:50 AM PDT
If Obama is your second choice and you don't want Hillary, the only way to know that your vote won't count towards an HRC victory is to vote for Obama.
by CTReformedRep on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:19:29 AM PDT
I personally haven't had to cross that bridge yet, and my primary isn't until February 19. If Edwards is gone in three weeks, I'll vote for Obama.
by Korkenzieher on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:47:16 AM PDT
Because he probably is drawing some support away from HIllary. But, I do wish more Edwards supporters who want Obama as their second choice would switch.
I'm really an anybody but HRC person.
by CTReformedRep on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:04:57 AM PDT
I voted for Obama today in the FL "beauty contest" primary. I still prefer Edwards, but his campaign was effectively finished by NH. It's a terribly unfair process that requires a $100mm cover charge to get into Club MSM, but it's the process we currently have.
As a volunteer in Ted K's 1980 campaign, he made me feel a lot better about my vote today. Hearing about HRC's and Obama's respective reactions to W's "the surge is working" line in the SOTU made me feel even better. Now, if my MOC, Kendrick Meek, can wake up and smell the coffee.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:45:25 AM PDT
because people like you are dropping out. There was no reason that he was finsihed after NH. It is all a media fabrication that the winners of just the first couple of states are the only ones that can win. Edwards hasn't caught on because we've been told he can't win almost since he entered the race, and everyone's bought into this story. The media has way too much power in determining who they cover, and how they cover the candidates. You should have voted for Edwards today and let the chips fall where they may.
How can people vote for a candidate that wants to build more nuclear power plants, and has already voted for the energy bill that is giving the nculear industry billions of dollars to do it? We need an activist candidate like Edwards. We at least need to keep Edwards in the race so that Edwards can keep our issues up front and force Obama and Clinton to deal with them.
by Lura on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM PDT
He never had the overall groundswell support. And, despite the enthusiasm of you and other supporters at DailyKos Edwards will never get the support.
When I heard Edwards "message" I knew it was never going to garner him more than fringe support. And that's what's happened.
Edwards may be "messaging" what you want to hear, but it's not what most working middle class Americans want to hear.
I'm not saying that's right, it's just how the electorate votes.
And you can throw out all that standard Edwards' supporters responses about "if they heard the message they will come to him," or "He's the most electable." Sorry, he can't win a single primary or caucus and he has a real poor record at winning any election.
It's not that Edwards supporters are switching that he's doing so poorly, it's that he never would have ever done well.
That some of his previous supporters have woken up, smelled the coffee and figured they may as well go for their second choice (who needs their vote to overcome HRC) is just the fact that some people are better able to face facts and move on.
by CTReformedRep on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM PDT
with either Obama or Clinton as President. I have accepted that and will welcome the change from Bush, but I am not throwing out the typical response. I responded to Edwards' positions on the issues and I want them to continue to be represented throughout the rest of this campaign.
Edwards did get a lot of union support and would have probably gotten more if he had won Iowa, so what is it that you think "most working middle class Americans want to hear."
Also, according the polsters, people have thought that Edwards was the most conservative of the three, to the right of Clinton. Nothing could be less true, he's the most liberal.
His message did not get heard, and I think it is important for us who believe in the progressive agenda to keep Edwards in so that he can keep pushing our ideals and have them represented so that they do get heard.
by Lura on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM PDT
Perception of candidates is often based on five second snips from news casts and commercials.
What did get through was not well received. I heard his ads while I was in NH after Xmas and was just shocked at how bad they were. It was clearly a message that was not going to resonate with anyone beyond a very liberal fringe. I don't know who gave him the advice to move away from his conservative Southern Dem positions but it was inherently bad advice.
It may have garnered Edwards some strident progressive supporters but it lost him the nomination.
Edwards is inherently unelectable. And, as far as him pushing the "progressive agenda"--prepare to be disappointed.
by CTReformedRep on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM PDT
that two states, with caucases, who allow Independents and Republicans to vote in their Democratic primaries, even allowing people to change their registration when they show up, could have so much power in determining the momentum of who is going to be our Democratic Presidential nominee. A person who could not decided between McCain or Obama, if you can imagaine such a person, but there apparently were many, had a much greater say than a long term activist like me in Pennsylvania, who might even ultimately have no say in determing the nominee.
by Lura on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM PDT
edwards was heard there a lot and had what amounts to "home court" support in both and did not take those states. wasn't even close to obama in IA. that to me was very telling.
the problem as i see it is not that edwards has been as marginalized as some claim. he does not have the same appeal as obama, bottom line, and some of that indeed has to do with being an outstanding african american candidate. but there's also more to it than that.
edwards does appeal greatly as a messenger and has kept social and economic justice front and center in this election, and he has incredible advocacy skill sets as well as honesty that make him important and necessary in our national life. i hope he gets a good post in our government or the VP spot on our ticket.
but who and what obama is has eclipsed both edwards and clinton. that bottom line, imo, is why obama leads both.
by gooddog on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:02:19 PM PDT
who said they liked Edwards, decided not to vote for him because they thought he couldn't win. I read this in a news report, perhaps on First Read (msnbc), but I can't remember exactly where. My point is that this is all psychological, and the people who orignally liked Edwards, but are jumping ship, are part of this. And Edwards didn't even get covered when he announced his candidacy, so beautifully, from New Orleans. There was just too much excitement in the media about the first viable woman and first viable African American in the race. There was some pole out last summer that said that 33% of the country didn't even know Edwards was running.
by Lura on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:11:09 PM PDT
the Edwards campaign failed miserably in a task that all candidacies must excel: earning free media coverage.
that black-out? it was a two-way street.
and no, going on a speaking tour, in and of itself, is not enough. putting out press releases is not enough. hiring joe trippi and amanda marcotte is not enough.
it may not seem fair, but it is what it is.
(oh, the stuff i learned from DFA)
The next fantasy: Obama/Dean (please let it be)
by wystler on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:43:48 PM PDT
Obama and Clinton were blacked out. All the "second tier" candidates, were second tier from day one and never had a chance. Even on cable, I only saw the second tier during the debates, and those debates were crowded and time was greatly slanted towards Obama and Clinton. You can't blame the candidates for this. Free media coverage has got to be rationed out more equally.
So that, now, we have a choice between three; and, as the media puts it, only two, candidates. Perhaps not the best of the bunch either.
by Lura on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:47:32 PM PDT
Understanding that free media is earned, rather than merely granted, is well understood by all the major candidates. (well, except, perhaps, Kucinich)
It's never been a question of what ought to be. It's the realist's understanding: what is.
I'm not fond of it either. But it is what it is. Spitting into the wind only makes one look foolish.
Change the system? Yes. But to do that, one must first thrive within the system. Recall, as example, what happened to Gov. Dean when he stated that he'd go Teddy Roosevelt on GE (i.e., break up broadcast oligopolies). Because his campaign had earned the free media, he continued to receive it, but the talking heads took delight in smacking him around.
Broadcast, and to a lesser extent, print, are fickle. They can be nasty. They promote their own self-interest. And, for the moment, it's their football, and their stadium, and their referees.
There's always the Eric Cartman solution: "Screw you guys, I'm going home." The alternative is to appreciate what now exists, strive to work within the strictures of the current game, and when power is attained, work effectively to improve the game.
by wystler on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:07:01 AM PDT
by ronlib on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:45:41 AM PDT
I take it back. Really, I do.
by bawbie on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:50:23 AM PDT
by Jimdotz on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM PDT
Edwards,if he is to be a kingmaker (how nice the Presidency is reduced to that term which I as an American truly and viscerally loath (negative present example of little boots shrubbie)should get a agreement to chase down the criminals out of the BushCheney soprano criminal gang AND get Univ HealthCare one payer overhaul.
The candidate that agrees to those two demands should get his support. And it will be him as AG and not a lickspittle corporate hider and denier from the old guard placed in to do it.
It's all speculative at this point. We really need a brokered convention like the old Parties used to have to make this happen.
The best reason to support Barack Obama is not his ideas, his oratory nor his background. It's his genius for leadership.
by Pete Rock on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:38:36 AM PDT
... in figuring that Edwards would become kingmaker.
It's far more likely that, on the second ballot, his national campaign would hold little sway with the delegates who were pledged to him on the first ballot. This really becomes a truly inside-baseball kind of game, and the delegates themselves, either individually or in small blocs, depending on who they happen to be, will become free-agents.
by wystler on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:26:49 PM PDT
... his to bequeath
if he stays true to his pledge, and goes to the convention, they're committed to voting for him on the first ballot. after that, they're free to vote their conscience (i.e., horsetrading), which is really fairly undisciplined for an also-ran campaign
bottom line: it's more important who the particular delegates are, and which side they each are likely to be amenable to the 2nd-ballot courting on an individual or small bloc basis
by wystler on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:23:20 PM PDT
and I think he would have the biggest margins in the general. I'll vote for him on 2/5.
But if he's not our candidate (and it's looking like he won't be), I'd happily take Obama.
I want somebody who can think, who understands the law, and the Constitution.
I think Obama's biggest strength is that he's lived in other places, and has some contact to the rest of the world. He's more like US - multi-cultural, with family of different races and religions, living all over the world.
But most of all, I want somebody who's actually DONE something - whether fighting for the rights of others or organizing and teaching. I want somebody who hasn't had everything handed to them their entire life.
by mmacdDE on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:21:33 AM PDT
at least even with her on 2/5, then Hillary will be the nominee.
And you won't know until 2/6 if Edwards will get that 15% he needs to be either king- or queen-maker. After SC, it seems kinda doubtful that he will.
I might add that it will be a whole lot better for the nominee and for democracy if the people choose him or her than if it comes from a political deal.
Edwards has earned enormous respect for the fight he's waged. IMHO, anybody who doesn't give him that respect is a putz.
It's pretty obvious at this point, however, that he isn't going to be the nominee. If he couldn't take second where he had another real chance to do so, then his supporters will start peeling off. Ergo, that 15% is extremely iffy.
Just sayin'.
by Fonsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:09:55 AM PDT
to keep our issues up front and force Obama and clinton to deal with them. It's not just Edwards we are voting for, but for the populist/progressive message. Don't let Obama, Clinton and the media, think that they can get away with running from the progressve positions! We must keep Edwards in to show that these ideas resonate with people; otherwise, Obama and Clinton will become more centrist.
It's a moral issue and we need to keep fighting. Edwards is willing to do it. We have to spport him.
by Lura on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:26:47 AM PDT
from Edwards to Obama last week. But it was a close call, having been thinking about it for a couple weeks (Bill Clinton helped push me over the fence). I do agree with you almost 100% and of course I well understand that you would be frustrated with people like me as I was with those that jumped earlier.
Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don't pretend to understand. Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird
by Judgment at Nuremberg on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:05:25 PM PDT
Keep in mind that if Obama doesn't keep ... at least even with her on 2/5, then Hillary will be the nominee.
not at all true
there's a mess of delegates up on 2/12. those states lean Obama now, before any TV ad buys have been made. Obama campaign just needs to stay competitive on 2/5.
by wystler on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:29:23 PM PDT
of that wonderful word - balderdash. <g>
Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before it is understood.
by Granny Doc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM PDT
the presumption that edwards staying in the race guarantees a brokered convention is just presumption and dangerous at that. if he siphons enough votes from obama, then clinton is the nominee and that ends the "promise" of a brokered convention. what has disturbed me recently about edwards is he seems to implicitly hold out the promise of a brokered convention to keep his supporters, and this is a promise he cannot keep because he does not control how voters vote. i find this dishonest, but not intentionally so. i think he really wants to believe this himself. but its a huge gamble, and it's OUR farm he's betting. so i've communicated the same to him and his campaign through emails/letters recently and i hope he considers the chance he's taking with OUR nomination. i've expressed the opinion that he should make a move now, not after feb 5 if he wants to cut a deal with obama, as i am truly concerned that after feb 5 will be too late for him, or for us to avoid a clinton nomination. if edwards were more viable, he wouldn't have placed second in IA by an 8 point margin and taken only 1 county in his native SC. wishful thinking cannot change this.
by gooddog on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:13:47 PM PDT
... for understanding that Edwards will not control the delegate slate who are pledged to him on the first ballot in a brokered convention (which would be a nightmare scenario, unless no candidate were close to having enough delegates on the first ballot).
by wystler on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:10:53 AM PDT
by chicago jeff on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM PDT
Edwards isn't out of the race for the nomination until he says so -- which likely isn't going to happen before the convention -- so I'm glad I didn't throw my conscience under the bus because the cattle drive happened to be heading in a different direction last Saturday.
Good is good, better may be better, but best is best, and Edwards has said he's in it through the convention.
by Straightforward on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 644 comments