CNN is now reporting that with 98% of the precincts in the South Carolina Democratic primary reporting, Obama has 55%, Clinton 27% and Edwards 18%.
South Carolina is the state of Edwards’ birth, the neighbor of Edwards home state, and the state he won in the 2004 primaries.
Edwards is now on the TV giving a standard-sounding stump speech, and not really commenting on the fact that he just got his ass thoroughly whumped. His hair looks great, though.
My question is whether there is any point for Edwards to continue in the race for the next week and a half, or should he just pull the plug now. There is obviously no possibility for him to beat both Clinton and Obama. The only chance for him to make any difference is in the unlikely chance that Clinton and Obama go neck and neck into the convention, and his delegates are enough to tip the balance.
On the other hand, if he drops his campaign now, and endorses one or the other of the leaders, he may be able to influence the all-important Super-Duper-Tuesday. He’s probably not going to be able to get a VP spot, but if one or the other candidates wins with his support, he probably could pick up a plum cabinet seat.
So, what should Edwards do now? If he drops out, should he endorse Clinton or Obama, or neither?
I guess the question is what Edwards can do to get the most power. And I don’t mean that in a cynical way. I think he believes his message, and since he doesn’t have another political position to fall back on, he has to wonder what he can get out of this. I think VP is out of the question–he just doesn’t add enough to either Clinton or Obama. But AG might be possible, and he could do a lot in that position to fight predatory lending, etc.
Assuming the premise–that he wants to get the most powerful position he can get–the question is whether he gets more bargaining power by supporting someone now or by racking up more delegates. I don’t know the answer to that. What happens to his delegates if he drops out? I assume the super-delegates just get to choose someone else, but what of the others?
If I were Edwards I’d tie my stagecoach to Obama’s horse. Even if Obama doesn’t win the nomination for the GE it’s a better move for Edwards, because if Obama doesn’t do it in '08 he’ll certainly be back in '12 and it’d probably be smart for Edwards to be thinking about this now. In my opinion if Hillary wins the nomination there’d be no way in Hell she’d give Edwards anything. I also believe Obama needs Edwards more than Hillary perceives she does, so a good cabinet position in the Obama administration does seem possible, perhaps probable.
Wantin’ ain’t gettin’. If Edwards can only get 18% of the vote in SC, where he was born, how many other states will he clear 15% in? If you don’t get 15%, you don’t get delegates, under the Dem rules.
However, Edwards clearly would rather see Obama than Clinton as the nominee. And it’s also clear that, in Southern states, Edwards will draw white votes away from Clinton (as you with the face already pointed out), making it easier for Obama to win pluralities. Plus, the campaign is still a great bully pulpit to influence people concerning the issues he cares about. Why should he quit?
And yeah, he’d make a great AG in an Obama administration. But if that bit of good fortune doesn’t happen, my WAG is he’ll probably follow Al Gore’s path, and try to raise the visibility of the issues he cares about, particularly in Edwards’ case reducing poverty, by working outside the political process.
I know you’re sympathetic to Edwards, but c’mon, he’s clearly a more successful candidate than he is a practical politician, and he isn’t that great a candidate.
As for working outside the political process - he seems interested in doing so so long as this can be used as a vehicle to keep him politically viable. The New York Times noted this with regards to his much ballyhooed Center for Progress and Opportunity - they described it as a shadow political organization.
I notice as well that the website of this “charity” no longer seems to work.
What does being a practical politician have to do with being AG? As we’ve seen lately, the AG has tremendous influence without having to be particularly politically savvy. While I’d like for a dem administration to have a less overtly partisan AG than the current administration, they could do far worse than Edwards should they decide to stick to the Bush model of actively partisan AG.
With or without Edwards, I don’t think it will matter anymore. Obama is competitive or has the advantage in only 5 of 22 states on Super Tuesday. After that, he’s a goner. Clinton will get the only real momentum in this campaign.
Right, there’s a strong and vocal anti-Clinton vote but just basing on the results of Nevada where Edward’s support fizzled, it would seem that it benefited Clinton more than Obama.
IYHO. I think he ran a remarkable campaign, given the media’s dislike for him and not-always-unstated desire to shut him out of the game.
From your link:
So apparently you are mistaken on the general point. Edwards set up two organizations, one of which is a bona fide charity, and has continued its work since he began his campaign. The other was a nonprofit but not a charity, and he used that for a number of purposes, some of which involved directly combating poverty, some of which can be seen as doing so indirectly, and some of which had no relation.
The one with the more direct and clear mission to directly aid poor students was alive and well in the middle of last year, according to the NY Times, and raising and giving beaucoups of money.
It makes no sense to say he’s not really interested in fighting poverty because some of what he does, doesn’t fight poverty.
I notice as well that you didn’t provide a linky for the allegedly defunct website. When come back, please substantiate factual claims that aren’t common knowledge.
It is hard to know which way Edwards supporters would go if Edwards drops. I’ve seen polls that support both contentions. Clearly he’s not dropping out before Super Tuesday. It’s only nine days away and while was third he beat the 15% cut-off and got delegates. So long as he’s getting delegates, and those delegates may translate into power, he’ll keep plugging away.
I guess that’s the question: will his supporters keep voting for him (or will those who want to vote against one of the others keep voting for him) after he’s come in third in his “native son” state?
If he comes out of Super Tuesday without more than a handful of additional delegates then he’d likely drop.
MD’s primary is on Feb. 12. But if I haven’t decided which of Hillary or Obama that I prefer as the Dem candidate by then - and I’m genuinely undecided, leaning one way one day, and one day the next - I’ll vote for Edwards.
But the singular of ‘anecdote’ is quite definitely ‘anecdote,’ so take that for what you will.
I think Edwards’ people will more naturally gravitate to Obama than Clinton, because Edwards seems to have the Republican-style Democrats: white, centrist — and especially Christian. Obama has been playing up his Christian faith lately.
Except that the exit polls say that the less likely someone is to attend church frequently, the more likely they are to support Edwards. Same is true for Clinton, but less pronounced. Obama’s the opposite - more church attendance = greater likelihood of supporting Obama.
And Edwards’ support is more like Clinton’s than Obama’s in other ways, such as having its strength among older whites.
Basically what you have here are two ‘beer track’ candidates, Clinton and Edwards - and one ‘wine track’ candidate, Obama, who also happens to be black, which allows him to reach a demographic that most wine-track candidates do very poorly in.
Given how much Edwards’ supporters demographically look like Clinton supporters - older, white, more secular - it’s hard for me to see them mostly going to Obama.