Poll for California Edwards Voters
Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:38:43 PM PDT
I'm a California voter, and have to vote early this year (as usual). I'm determined not to do as I've done in the past, that is, essentially waste my vote by casting it absentee for a candidate who is out of the race by the time the polls close on the actual day of teh election.
I've been supporting Edwards, but I'm frankly not optimistic he's going to survive through Feb. 5th. But because the vast number of delegates this season are being selected that day, in theory, he could still be competitive with a good showing that day. I'm curious about what other California Edwards voters are thinking they might do in the eternal tactics-vs.-principle of not wanting a vote for Z to benefit X because Z and Y are alternaties to X. Read on for an explanation and poll.
I work on the local election board every election, and I vote early(at the county office or absentee, depending on whether the county has remembered to send my ballot out), since I don't work in my precinct and it's difficult to impossible to get away long enough to drive back to cast a ballot in person.
Usually I have my mind made up on everything well in advance, so this is not a problem. However, in Presidential primaries, this is a real problem, since voting even a day early can result in casting a ballot for somebody who's already dropped out. I do like voting early, especially when I can hand-deliver my ballot to the county office, so I can have some assurance my vote is in the hopper already and in case there's any kind of screw-up with my registration or whatever, so I can take care of it before election day. (This has happened to me twice in 24 years of voting, so I'm mildly paranoid about this.)
So, yes, I know, I can put off dropping my ballot in the mail until a week or so before the election, but I don't think the basic conundrum is going to change much by then, since I think Edwards will still be in third place in terms of resources.
Without this being intended as a negative comment, I don't think Clinton has as strong a chance in the general election as Obama, Edwards, or even Richardson. She would make a decent President, but I've seen nothing in her performance in this campaign to date that makes me think she won't erode further under the usual rigors of the campaign. I don't want to let this post turn into a discussion about HRC's chances, please, this is more or less directed at my fellow Edwards supporters who may also be fence-sitting for Obama.
I like Obama. I'm mildly concerned about the lack of experience being used as an issue against him, although frankly I think this is overstated. I wish his policies and focus were as well-defined as Edwards' have been, but similarly I have wished of late that Edwards was capable of commanding an audience and projecting that ethereal Presidential quality that Obama has been doing nicely. That said, on paper I long ago totted up all the candidates' relative qualities and decided that Edwards was, on paper, slightly preferable to Obama, and that the two of them were quite a bit ahead of the rest of the pack in terms of what I wanted in a President.
And, bloviating in the NH debate yesterday aside, I do buy Edwards' characterization of Obama and he being more candidates for change than Clinton, who, for better or for worse, can be best characterized as a revival candidate (the basis of her "experience", such as it differs from Edwards and Obama - they're all one-term Senators more or less -- is entirely her relationship to the WH Clinton administrations. Going back to the good old days is a valid platform, but it's not one I am really hep on at this point.)
But the reality of the political calendar and the bankroll is that it sure seems like Obama and Clinton are the two candidates in it for the long haul. Edwards took matching money, which inherently limits his ability to spend tactically, and does not look, as he did for much of the first month of the primary season in '04, like the only viable alternative to the presumptive nominee (Kerry in that case). I did vote for Edwards in '04, and he of course dropped out after the early returns the day of the California primary, but he was behind Wes Clark and Howard Dean on my personal ordered list that year.
If I would vote for Obama over Clinton, and vote for Edwards in what would likely be only a symbolic vote if he's not in any position to actually win the nomination (spare me the idea that losers influence the platform -- they don't, not anymore), then essentially I'm helping out Clinton.
Here's another way of putting it: electability is an issue. Is "nominatability" also a valid basis on which to cast a vote?
Call me a waverer, but I want my vote to make a difference in the primary if it's a binary choice at that point.
I thought about asking this poll question more generically, but I decided that to really get good data, it would be helpful for me to limit my intended poll audience to my fellow California Edwards supporters, since voting as a bloc in this matter actually might be tactically smarter. And, to answer the inevitable cynical question on the matter, I'm genuinely pondering the issue of tactics vs. principle, as I often do in primary battles -- this is not intended as a sandbag for anyone's particular benefit.
So I'm asking only Edwards supports in California to respond to the poll below. It's not scientific, of course, but we'll see what the comment trail suggests.
Permalink | 24 comments