After SC, should Edwards pack it in?

[RTFirefly]

@Liberal

Let’s review my original point, that white male Christians might tend to gravitate to Edwards since he is a white male Christian.

Actually, your original point wasn’t that white male Christians might tend to gravitate towards Edwards, but that because Edwards’ support was white, centrist, and Christian, Edwards’ supporters would gravitate towards Obama:

@Liberal

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.

IOW, I seem to have to remind you of what your point was, in the first place. Shouldn’t you be the one to keep track of that?

Let’s review your response to me, that exit polls showed church attendance implied support for Obama rather than Edwards. You left out the “white” part and the “male” part, leaving the possibility that the church attenders who supported Obama were predominately Black and constituted a greater proportion of voters than white males.

And you left out the “John Maynard Keynes” part.

No, I didn’t bring up Keynes. But you didn’t bring up males anywhere in our discussion, or in any post of yours that I responded to. You mentioned males to BG in post 34, but that was (a) after most of our back-and-forth, and (b) wasn’t anything addressed to me anyway.

Kinda silly of you to dump on me for not responding to something you’d never said.

With that, I must bid you adieu. This has really become too silly to merit further attention.

[Anduril]

@BrainGlutton

According to this, Edwards’ advisors say he’s hoping to play a “kingmaker” role at a brokered convention. (I just hope that means him throwing his support behind Obama at the end of the day.)

I don’t know if you would have the info, but has there ever been a convention where the one with the most delegates coming in didn’t win? Say, the superdelegates and another candidate threw their support to the one with the lesser number of delegates?

[BobLibDem]

AP is now reporting that Edwards is dropping out.

[RTFirefly]

@BobLibDem

AP is now reporting that Edwards is dropping out.

Link to AP story.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Anduril

I don’t know if you would have the info, but has there ever been a convention where the one with the most delegates coming in didn’t win? Say, the superdelegates and another candidate threw their support to the one with the lesser number of delegates?

I don’t think it ever happened. The whole system only dates back to 1972. That year there was an attempt at the convention to stop McGovern (who had won the most delegates), but it failed.

[Anduril]

@Captain Amazing

I don’t think it ever happened. The whole system only dates back to 1972. That year there was an attempt at the convention to stop McGovern (who had won the most delegates), but it failed.

Thanks for the info. So if it happens this year, it would be the first time. I’m thinking that if Hillary doesn’t rack up the big points prior to the convention, it could happen to her and I have a feeling that it will succeed.

[RTFirefly]

The next few days should settle the question of whether Edwards was taking more votes from Hillary or Obama.

Nationally, Rasmussen’s daily tracker had it as a 41-32-16 race through yesterday’s polling. And Gallup’s daily tracker put it at 42-36-12.

There’ve also been recent polls in several Feb. 5 states. Subsequent polls should give us some regional data.

[Richard_Parker]

@RTFirefly

The next few days should settle the question of whether Edwards was taking more votes from Hillary or Obama.

Keeping in mind of course that there are two more possibilities: he’s was taking them away in equal proportions, and that at least some of his votes were people who wouldn’t be voting anyway were it not for his candidacy.

(My own prediction is that the effect of his dropping out won’t change the numbers much, but it will be hard to say given the other events that might be changing things.)

[MovieMogul]

From Salon:

“I can say this, that, you know, being a Southerner, being an American who’s been completely devastated by the trade policies of the Clintons, I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure that he does not endorse Hillary Clinton.” – Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, a senior advisor to former Sen. John Edwards’ now-defunct presidential campaign, during an appearance on MSNBC earlier Wednesday.

[BrainGlutton]

@ArchiveGuy

From Salon:

What is Obama’s trade policy? Globalist, protectionist, what? I can’t find anything about it here.

[Richard_Parker]

@BrainGlutton

What is Obama’s trade policy? Globalist, protectionist, what? I can’t find anything about it here.

From his website:

Barack Obama supports a trade policy that ensures our goods and services are treated fairly in foreign markets. At the same time, trade policy must stay consistent with our commitment to promote improved labor and environmental practices. In its first six years, the Bush Administration has filed only 16 cases to enforce its rights under WTO agreements. This compares to 68 cases filed during the first six years of the Clinton Administration. President Bush has failed to address the fact that China has engaged in ongoing currency manipulation that undercuts US exports; that China fails to enforce US copyrights and trademarks and that some of our competitors create regulatory and tax barriers to the delivery and sale of technology goods and services abroad. Barack Obama will fight for fair treatment of our companies abroad.

To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan not only help strengthen America’s energy security and tackle global climate change, but it will also make strategic investments in American workers and American businesses to create millions of new jobs. The Obama plan will invest in America’s highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide specific tax assistance and loan guarantees to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient cars and trucks are build in the U.S. with American workers.

Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good
American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce
trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports. Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

[BrainGlutton]

@Richard Parker

From his website:

Well, that sounds like a definite improvement over (Bill) Clinton’s policies and Bush’s, if he can pull it off. “Fair Trade” is better than “Free Trade.”