Did John Edwards miscalculate by not appearing on the Michigan primary ballot? Admittedly, having Obama and Edwards off the ballot allows for mischief skewing the Republican ticket. But Michigan is the perfect ground for Edward's populist economic message.
As it stands now the Michigan Democratic primary is a non-starter. With only one candidate on the ballot, Democrats in Michigan don't have a lot to talk about. Which also allows the MSM to focus on the two-horse race of Obama and Clinto in SC and NV.
The NYT had a great article in the Sunday edition illustrating this:
The early date, though, angered national leaders, and has set off waves of confusion among voters here, particularly among the Democrats. The Democratic Party has reprimanded the state and most of its candidates are not campaigning here; some, including Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards, had their names removed from the ballot, though Mrs. Clinton did not.
Democrats here, particularly supporters of Mr. Edwards (whose anti-big-corporation message seemed to draw appeal here) and Mr. Obama, said they were not sure whether they would vote at all now. Supporters of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama are pressing voters to choose "uncommitted" as a sign of support for them, but people here seemed puzzled by the notion.
Imagine if there was a showdown between Clinton and Edwards? The Michigan primary would be transformed into powerful litmus test of Edward's message (and his viability as a front-runner).
I can't help but think that if Edwards were on the ballot in Michigan he would have a strong chance to win the primary - Providing his candidacy a life-saving boost. I strongly believe that by aligning himself with the DLC against the early Michigan primary, Edwards may have dealt a fatal blow to any remaining chance of being considered a front-runner candidate.