I admire many of the things John Edwards says, but I’ve argued for some time that the campaign he is running is unrealistic and, more importantly, unelectable. I think the primary votes so far bear this out, but that’s a separate discussion. The questions I want to raise here are more direct presentations of a suggestion David raised obliquely: will Edwards drop out? If he does drop out, and endorses Obama, will that be enough to swing the primary campaign to the Senator from Illinois? If he does drop out, but doesn’t endorse Obama, would his supporters likely still vote for Obama, would they just sit out, or would they vote for Clinton … or Kucinich, or someone else?
I see the argument that the best way Edwards can maximize his power is to stay in until the Convention. Speaking as an Obama supporter, however, I think if he stays in Clinton will be the biggest beneficiary, because I think most of the people who vote for him would vote for Obama if he was not a choice. Practically, I suspect he will stay in the race until he is forced out by a lack of money no matter what the strategic considerations. It’s hard to get these politicians to sit down (oops, sorry, I meant to write that these politicians care so deeply and genuinely about the causes they espouse that they’ll walk through fire rather than give up — it’s really all for the children, after all). But I wonder what you think.
My guess is that Edwards needs to stay in at least through South Carolina since he’ll eat up at least 20% of the white male vote which would probably otherwise go to Clinton. After that it will help Obama if he drops out since many of the “progressives” who will vote in the primary but will for whatever reason not support Clinton will have to go to Obama. But that doesn’t mean that all his support will go to Obama, and in parts of the country it may help Clinton.
i see no evidence that obama himself is progressive, so i wouldn’t assume that edwards progressives will migrate to obama. this progressive feels no incentive to support obama, that’s for sure.
working as a community organizer, passing legislation for taping of interrogations to protect those arrested from police coercion, providing the first earned income tax credit for the working poor in Illinois, helping pass the Illinois Kidcare expansion of healthcare benefits to kids not eligible for Medicaid, pushing through campaign finance and ethics reform in the state, initiating measures against racial profiling, sponsoring legislation barring discrimination based on sexual orientation …why would anyone see a record like that as progressive? Progressives like me must be nuts to support Obama.
<
p>While Edwards, on the other hand, there’s a guy with a real progressive record – cosponsoring Liebermann’s Iraq war resolution and voting for the AUMF, and as I’ve previously posted here, voting to exempt pickup trucks from fuel efficiency standards, against drinking water protections, for subsidies for environmentally-damaging factory farms, and for the Yucca mountain facility for nuclear waste. Then there’s his reported discomfort with “those people” – gays and lesbians – and his 66 out of 100 score from the Human Rights Campaign for the 108th Congress. I can sure see why progressives are falling all over themselves for Edwards.
<
p>Glad to see you posting again, Laurel, but this comment isn’t you at your persuasive best.
not trying to persuade. fwiw i’m not an edwards supporter either, but thx for the impartial comparison. ;D
And where’s the fun? I should change my tagline to say: “I am not and have never been a member of the International Federation of Journalists.”
A lot obviously depends on South Carolina, but my impression is that not all of his supporters strongly prefer the same candidate over the other. While it makes sense that “progressives” would likely move towards Obama, I have encountered some who have strong preferences of Clinton over Obama as well as Obama over Clinton.
who can’t bring myself to vote for either of the other two. The question I pose to myself is whether I will show up and vote at all.
<
p>I find it profoundly sad that it has come to that, but at the moment that’s how I feel.
I’ve been a long-time Edwards supporter in this cycle, attracted by his focus on ordinary Americans and a willingness to forge a progressive agenda at the expense of popularity with the money wings of the party and the establishment media.
<
p>Frankly, I thought that John would be able to reach out to the folks who usually have no say in American politics. To my disappointment, this was a bigger project than I imagined.
<
p>Based on the campaigns that I have seen the two senators run, I think that Clinton shows that she understands more of the forgotten America than Obama does. While Clinton carries an awful lot of baggage, she also represents quite a bit of the resilience and strength of the American people.
But Clinton plus Edwards beats Obama for sure. John Edwards has the endorsement of a number of unions. Hillary Clinton has the support of more working class people than Barack Obama. Barack Obama appeals more to higher income, upper class voters. If John Edwards drops out, more of his union supporters will support Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. And the stories about Obama mentioning Reagan in admiring terms certainly can not help him with union members who remember Reagan’s attitude toward unions.
Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, pointed to two worrisome signs for Obama in yesterday’s Nevada result: The loss of a state with a large Hispanic population, suggesting that he does not connect as well as Clinton with that growing voting bloc, and a problem attracting the support of working-class voters.
<
p>”Despite all the talk of her having had eight campaign slogans, Clinton managed to connect with working-class Democrats,” Scala said. “Obama did not, with all the appeals to hope and change. That’s part of Obama’s problem; he appeals to upper-class] voters who have the luxury of thinking about reforming the nation’s politics. For working-class voters, it’s more about healthcare.”
<
p>I am a member of the working class with the imperative to think about reform because, I know healthcare legislation and lobbyists are joined at the hip.
<
p>___________________________________________
<
p>Regarding Union support. The last time I was in a clutch on Laborers, Pile Drivers and Operating Engineers; Ronald Reagan was as popular as Bill Clinton.
<
p>Sure, Dems will reinstate the PLA, but many blue collar workers are also rednecks.
<
p>Lower taxes and patriotism is a staple of coffee break bullshit.
<
p>Next time you see a clutch of “sand hogs”, go ask ’em. ;v)
thanks to the [hated] caucus system.
<
p>Dig through the data of a state. Look at how Clinton and Obama did in the individual caucus precincts/wards where Edwards was “viable”, and those where he was not.
<
p>For example: if all three broke down [normalized]:
<
p>40:35:25 BHO:HRC:JE
or
45:55 BHO:HRC
<
p>then this suggests that JE supporters break to HRC 4 to 1. This is a made up example and not intended to be an actual guess or estimate. It also may be subject to other biases: maybe JE’s supporters have a second choice of BHO in places where JE is always viable, but JE supporters happen to support HRC second in places where JE isn’t viable.
<
p>Still — it’d give a better sense than just guessing based on a progressive message. I, for one, am not so sure BHO does have a more progressive message than HRC.
<
p>2. As mentioned earlier, Edwards is probably hurting Clinton more than he is Obama. Clinton would most def. win S. Carolina without Edwards spitting the white vote.
<
p>3. Personally, I would prefer Clinton over Obama. The reason is that I see Clinton as more of a ‘safe’ Democratic voice. I am not convinced Obama is really progressive and will stand firm for (domestic) Democratic values.