When for nearly a year you've made an occasional pastime of criticizing the wishful thinking, the sophistry and illiteracy at the base of the vast majority of the arguments against one candidate in favor of another, and made what time has shown to be clear-minded and prescient forecasts of the political outcomes concerned, you're tempted to gloat. After all, your guy won and the other guy suffered a defeat from which, by virtue of the strategy he has pursued to date, he cannot recover.
But this is not about the winners, it's about all those who cast their lots with the other candidates, the ones who lost by a decisive margin (about eight percent). It's about the excuses and the counter-factuals that assault the intrepid reader with reams of relentless unreason.
Was Edwards outspent six to one? Very likely, yes, he was. Was he also out-raised something like four to one? As I recall, that's not too far off. Indeed, he was quite rightly called inviable by the front page on this account and because of his decision to go publicly funded, though the rest of the netroots went right along supporting him, imagining that if he could somehow get into the White House, they might someday see key members of the Bush Administration drawn and quartered and that every campaign promise made by Democrats of the 20th century would come to fruition under his watch.
The failure to raise money, especially against a candidate like Obama, with such strong small donor support, indicates a lack of enthusiasm about the candidate. Some people are just plain skeptical when your standard issue Southern Democrat suddenly decides he's FDR when primary season rolls around. Plus, he already lost a general election before, adding exactly nothing to the ticket, I might add. It's a movie we saw before about four years ago.
Is John Edwards the "real winner"? Well, he came in second in his strongest state. He did not come in a close second. He lost by eight points, with Hillary right behind him. Eight points translates to 26% more votes, a huge margin. The same Hillary he edged out by a little over a third of a percent last night beats him by around 20 points in New Hampshire, according to recent polls. 20 points. Edwards will be lucky to break 15 on Tuesday. And a third of a percent? Edwards' second place is more a curiosity than a victory. In different weather a bus might have broken down and switched him into third behind Clinton.
In any case, the polls in the other states are clear. While there may be a contest with the remnants of the Clinton campaign, Edwards is toast. You see, in the real world, where Edwards polls around 15-20% rather than a bizarre 50%, the word for people who call second place a "real win" is "loser." You don't get momentum from doing slightly better than polls predicted. You get momentum from winning decisively, say by eight percent.
But I hate to ramble and I'm a bit hung over. I'll see you all in New Hampshire.