Dean 2nd, Edwards 3rd -- Dean vs. Edwards in 2000 blue (Gore) states

[stickdog]

Including DC, there have been just 7 primary contests so far in 2000 blue (Gore) states. Dean beat Edwards head to head in MI, WA, NM, ME & DC and lost to Edwards head to head in DE (by less than 250 votes) and IA (where the popular, local Gephardt kamikazed Dean). That's 5-2 for Dean.

Within these 7 contests, Dean has 3 second place finishes, 3 third place finishes, and 1 fourth place finish. Meanwhile, Edwards has 1 second place finish, 2 third place finishes and 4 fourth place finishes.

Dean has won delegates in 6 of these 7 races, while Edwards has won delegates in just 2 of these 7 races.

In won delegates among all 2000 blue (Gore) states, Dean has won 77 delegates to Edwards' 24. So Dean has won more than 3 times the number of delegates that Edwards has won so far among the 2000 Democratic states!

Dean is the clear second choice to Kerry in Democratic states. In fact, Edwards has won over 2/3 of his delegates in states we don't have a chance in hell of winning in 2004!

[drfemoe]

1. DU Exclusive

Bet you won't be reading that breakdown anywhere else folks!!

[dkf]

2. You're right.

Dean has been doing better than Edwards lately. The fact that the DNC wants Dean to drop out is simply ridiculous.

I also read that Edwards is running out of $. Dean has a way better funding base than Edwards so he looks like the only viable candidate vs. Kerry.

Frankly, I wish the race was Dean vs. Edwards. I could definitely support either one of these guys with time effort and $. Unfortunately I know too much about Kerry to ever support or even vote for him. Just can't do it.

[madfloridian]

4. Good analysis.

Dean has been getting big bucks today from folks who were just waiting for Neel and Dean to say the words. Not a problem there.

[Dookus]

5. and that's the shame...

that money could be used to fight Bush instead of a quixotic fight for the nomination. But I believe the problem will be solved in 36 hours.

[dkf]

9. You know...if it were anybody but Kerry maybe this wouldn't mean so

much to me.

But Kerry has done things I really really disapprove of.

His co-opting of Dean's message makes me highly suspicious of his motives and convictions.

I simply don't think Kerry would be good for the country even if he got in.

I think that Bush is going to lose whoever the Dem nominee is and I wish to have a better choice than John Kerry.

To me, this is not ABB, this is all about saving our country because I love the United States of America. It is about the 1st time in my life I've felt truly patriotic and I'm going to do what I can.

[burning bush]

19. Exactly, dkf

The stealing of the message is what bothers me the most, but it is far from the only problem I have with the Junior Senator from MA.

I used to be a Kerry fan. I thought that Gore should have taken him as his VP.

Now, I see him as a less evil puppet of the same forces that control Bush.

Put Kerry in, and the same people will pull the strings. We won't have any change of any depth.

Whatever differences that we see will be entirely superficial, and we'll end a Kerry term with out having done much besides getting rid of Bush.

A job we should be able to perform without Kerry.

This is my new mantra - Don't complain when your prayars are answered after praying only to get rid of Bush.

[Anwen]

10. If Dean's campaign is quixotic,

then so are Edwards, Kucinich and Sharpton's campaigns.

I suppose you think they should all drop out tomorrow and jump on the Kerry bandwagon?

[Dookus]

16. go search my past posts

for my views on that.

[Anwen]

64. I don't have time for that.

I was hoping for a simple yes or no answer.

[Anwen]

63. deleted

[burning bush]

11. I WANT an all out, fight to the end, kicking scratching eye gouge primary

Either Dean will fall to Kerry's bag of dirty tricks, media support and ability to lock the door on his skeletal closet-or Kerry will fall to Dean's honesty, message, fundraising prowess, grass roots support and bull dog determination.

Either Kerry will break Dean the way Bush broke McCain, or Dean will break Kerry the way America broke the Soviet Union in the coldwar.

Its a game of last man standing.

Edwards will be the next to go, though I would have preferred him to Kerry.

[dkf]

14. Yeah! I'm ready for this fight.

Finally got my totals from DFA. I've got more space to give than I thought!

I'm planning to give $500 for the "super tuesday" bat when it comes up.

yeaaaarrgggh!

[madfloridian]

12. The money will go to very good use, Dookus.

Trust me.

[Dookus]

17. yes it will...

it will be used to pay low level campaign workers and cover the costs of shutting down the campaign.

[dkf]

20. Whatever...we're going on.

That is all I care about.

BTW, I hear that Kerry is paying his signholders $10/hr and they have not a clue about where he stands on the issues.

Dean supporters do this stuff for free because we love the guy.

[Dookus]

23. oh...

well if you heard it, it must be true, and meaningful.

I'm glad Dean has a lot of volunteers. I'm also glad he doesn't have a lot of voters.

[dkf]

28. Dean supporters were talking to Kerry signholders and found out that

piece of info.

Just another bit of trivia I'm sure you could care less about.

[Dookus]

52. and I bet

I could find a Kerry supporter who claims that the Dean supporters s/he encountered didn't know the facts about their candidate. In fact, I'm sure I could find a Dean supporter right here on DU who doesn't know the facts about his/her candidate. In fact, I see it every day.

I will take the second-hand reports that an un-named Dean supporter encountered an un-named Kerry supporter who didn't know "the facts" with a grain of salt. Or maybe a big ol' chunk of salt.

[burning bush]

29. But you're wrong :)

Dean does have a lot of voters, a mile wide AND a mile deep

What Kerry has is 2 miles wide and 1 inch deep.

Don't gloat. If Kerry slips, that 1 inch is easily transferable.

[Dookus]

35. You DO understand, don't you

that when you vote they don't ask if you really really really like your candidate and then weigh your vote based on that?

One person, one vote. Kerry's getting the votes.

[burning bush]

61. I'm not talking about those that HAVE voted

I'm talking about the huge majority that has yet to vote.

You do understand that don't you?

[Ficus]

62. Dean paid volunteers to come to Iowa

so I think there may be something to be said about a pot and a kettle and the color black.

[Hekate]

70. The folks who went from my area paid their own way

Paid their own way and then some. One young woman stayed with a relative she'd never met before; and our group voted to help out a student who didn't have travel money. If any of them got wages from the campaign I didn't hear about it.

Hekate

~~Give 'em hell, Howard. I want my country back.~~

[Ficus]

74. I'm not saying that didn't happen

but I know Dean volunteers who were paid. That's all. It was an amazing effort nonetheless.

[stickdog]

34. And what do our taxes pay for Dookus?

Just wondering what your take is.

[Dookus]

36. Not sure why you're asking...

but our taxes go to pay the cost of the government and the services it provides.

What do I win?

[stickdog]

37. Just wondering if you think the money we "waste" when we pay taxes is

as disconcerting to you as the money we are "wasting" on the Dean campaign.

[Dookus]

41. Still not getting your point....

are you saying financial support for a candidate is equivalent to taxation?

I will say here without hesitation that we shouldn't waste tax money. We should also not waste money on doomed primary campaigns.

[lojasmo]

56. WE are not

You maybe are wasting your money on Kerry"s campaign, but my money is going to Dean. Therefore only one of us is wasting our money, not "we"

[stickdog]

32. What problem? The problem of the media not being able to attack Kerry

soon enough for your liking? Because I can assure you that we aren't about to send our hard earned $100 donations off to Boston to pay the interest on Kerry's self-financed campaign loans, regardless.

Seriously, what problem are you talking about? Are Kerry's numbers against Bush going up or down?

Why does the second place candidate need to withdraw when the first place candidate still has less than 25% of the necessary delegates?

[Guaranteed]

58. It's money that a Democrat would otherwise not see. nt

[stickdog]

65. Certainly not Kerry.

He's already proven he doesn't want or need our money.

[HFishbine]

59. "quixotic"

Just what Dean said he wold n't let his campaing become. See, there is some advantage to him staying in the race. He's improving America's vocabulary.

[Exgeneral]

67. since when is fighting against a sure loser nominee a problem?

speaking about Kerry........:evilgrin:

[Dookus]

3. wow...

So Dean can eke out a tight second in some states! Does the AP know about this?

If he gets really lucky and starts racking up a solid string of second places, he might just.... well.... I dunno, lose?

[burning bush]

6. That was Dookus, ladies and germs!

he'll be here Monday through Sunday through the entire primary season, and Wednesday nights till 11:00. Whaddya say, the hardest working man in comedy. Thank you very much. Try the veal - you'll love it.

[Dookus]

8. and don't forget

to tip your waitress

[w13rd0]

7. Ah, in just thinking back one year...

...I'm amazed at how far we've come. I calculated that I could actually max my contribution limit if I paced myself to go the distance. It's absurd that some are declaring that my support is irrelevant, and I should go hitch my horse elsewhere. F'that...

On to Boston, and beyond! YEAARRGGGHHHH!!!!

[burning bush]

13. Rebel Yell, Weirdo!

YEAAARRGGH!!!

Did I spell that correctly?

[Tweed]

15. Amazing, Dean for second place!

[dkf]

18. Last man standing.

That's the strategy.

Notice that Kerry is finally getting attacked by the media for his contradictory votes vs. campaign rhetoric?

Media scrutiny is only starting. Let's see how well Kerry survives this coming onslaught.

[Dookus]

27. yes we'll see

tomorrow will tell us a lot.

If Kerry only wins by 25 points, it will show a chink in his armor. It means Dean might get some delegates out of WI. A lot fewer than Kerry gets, but still, some. And evidently, winning fewer delegates in every primary is Dean's strategy for getting the nomination.

[burning bush]

30. Funny Guy

Dean's strategy is to hang on till the shit in Kerry's closet starts to leak out from beneath the door. then watch the support shuffle.

2 miles wide, 1 inch deep

Hey!

Thats my new nickname for Kerry.

"1 inch Johnny" lol...

You know, for such a tall guy you would expect more than an inch...

[Dookus]

33. that's quite a plan

sitting back and hoping for a scandal to bring down your opponent. Alas, it's not a reliable strategy.

And if that was his plan all along, why waste 40 million dollars? I have to believe he thought, at least at one point, that he could actually garner the votes of Democratic primary voters based on his own appeal. I guess the scandal strategy is plan B.

Also, is that how he plans to beat Bush?

[dkf]

38. Why does it take a scandal?

Why not voter disgust over rampant hypocrisy?

Or more questionable assistance for big donors in return for campaign donations. Although that might be considered a scandal.

Or equivocation after equivocation and lack of taking responsibility for his votes.

[Dookus]

40. well

there could be just as much voter disgust over Dean's rampant hypocrisy. A centrist corporatist running as a liberal. A DLC insider running as an outsider. A campaign finance reform advocate running outside the laws regarding campaign finance. An anti-environmentalist running as a green.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Dean is not pure, nor is he appealing to large numbers of voters. Thank goodness the vast majority of Democratic primary voters realize that.

[dkf]

45. Do you really believe that Dean doesn't have true disgust for the

way Washington does business?

Sure sounds to me like he means it. I mean why else take on the entire establishment? It's not easy what he's doing.

Anyway, the goal of campaign finance reform is to take the influence of wealthy supporters out of legislation, not to limit spending. Limiting spending is just one method they thought would work.

And Dean is not running as a green. He's running as a Democrat.

People like Dean's positions better than Kerry's. That is why Kerry stole them all and repudiated a whole lot of his voting record.

[Dookus]

46. I see...

Kerry, the unabashed liberal Senator with a 20 year record is stealing the positions of the small-state Governor who WAS a self-described centrist and is now running as a populist.

If people like Dean's positions better than Kerry's, I humbly suggest Dean might've won a primary or two. Since he hasn't, and Kerry's won 14 of them, I'm going to believe Democrats like Kerry's positions better.

[burning bush]

39. not so fast there, gunner!

That was actually my concept of the plan, not Deans, regardless of what I said in the post. I would have guessed that you knew that already, but maybe I gave you too much credit?

Of course, Dean's original plan was to do that which Kerry has since managed to do, which is to sew up the first two contests and initiate a steam roller effect.

That didn't happen, so Dean has had to adapt.

The strategy as I see it assumes that Kerry is a rotten piece of fecel matter, and time will reveal all. So - hang on till your opponent is revealed for the piece of shit he is.

That's not a bad plan when your opponent is John Kerry.

Dean's real strategy, I ASSUME, is to hang on, pick up as many delegates as he can, and get Kerry in a two man race.

Edwards MUST drop out for this to happen, but if it does, then watch Dean go apeshit on Kerry.

The goal is to win the primary.
The secondary goal is to influence the party and revitalize the base.

On point #2, Dean has already won.

Kerry has some voters, Dean has some followers.

If dean loses to Kerry, he survives with influence. If Dean wins, Kerry is history.

[Dookus]

42. well

whether it's your plan or Dean's, it's one I wish you all the best of luck with.

If a scandal doesn't pop up, perhaps you could pin your hopes on a recurrence of Kerry's cancer.

[eileen_d]

48. Hmm... a strategy based on your opponent being a piece of shit

If I was a candidate running with that strategy, one would have to assume I had no strengths of my own to run on. Is that the case with Dean?

BTW, I don't have any desire for Dean to drop out. Just hopping on a moving train here...

[burning bush]

60. Jeez, can't you understand TWO ideas at once?

One idea is mine. If you think it sucks - well, thats why I'M not running for President, DUH.

The other idea, which you completely IGNORE, is Dean's

Let me quote myself, since you can't seem to read past the first sentence of that other post:

Dean's real strategy, I ASSUME, is to hang on, pick up as many delegates as he can, and get Kerry in a two man race.

All the assuming that Kerry is a piece of shit is done by ME. Get it? ME.

Let me repeat it. I think Kerry is apiece of shit. Knock me on that, I don't give a damn. I'll wear that one withpride.

DEAN, on the other hand, is trying to get Kerry in a head on race so he can challenge him directly, confront the fact that Kerry has stolen Dean's message, blow apart the aura of electability, and give the voters a clear choice between a Senator who only talks about doing things, and seems to point whichever way the winds of public opinion blow, and a Governor who has a solid list of accomplishments, and makes tough choices based on what is right, not on what is expedient.

There, did I clear that up for you?

[eileen_d]

69. Calm down - I understand that you were discussing two strategies

And yes, I comprehend both of them. I chose to criticize the first one, and ignore the second one. I ignored the second one because I happened to agree with most of it. I criticized the first one because I thought it was flawed.

If there is a set of format guidelines you would like me to follow when I respond to your posts, please PM me so I don't "screw up" like this in the future!

[stickdog]

22. Yes, Dean for second place. Not Dean sucks and should drop out,

but Dean in a SOLID second place!

[Dookus]

47. I won't object

to Dean scoring a second place finish. In fact, I'll be impressed if he achieves it.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Ridiculous argument; the RED STATES ARE THE ISSUE

Gosh, folks in lefty strongholds who'll vote Dem regardless have statistically favored Dean. That means absolutely nothing. Try looking at South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia.

Edwards beat Kerry by 15 1/2 points in South Carolina, lost to Clark by less than a half of a point in Oklahoma, and did way better than Dean in either Tennessee or Virginia.

Don't forget, too, that with Clark's targeting of Edwards, Edwards was unable to campaign in places like Michigan, where his trade policies could have really scored. Clark was unable to campaign there too, and his "anti-war" stance would have soaked off some of Dean's support as well. Edwards did virtually no campaigning in most of those states you cite, and the residual support for Dean came into play.

The essence of the appeal of Dean's campaign has been a cathartic release of frustration; this invariably plays well in blue areas.

Dean's had to fight against Lieberman and Gephardt, but he started out in an infinitely better position; Edwards had to fight off a much better funded and connected candidate, and do it with less resources.

As for Delaware, lest we forget, Lieberman beat Edwards for 2nd by a whopping 26 votes. Let's also not forget that Clark held onto third in New Hampshire by 839 votes, which was less than 2/5ths of a percent. Statistics are interesting things; selective use of them can truly warp one's view.

What possible relevance is there to finding out that one is more popular in places where either would win? (It's immaterial even if they'd both been able to properly compete.) The big issue is who can take hostile territory.

NOBODY, but nobody can take rural areas, the south and working-class areas like Edwards. You may dispute that latter part of that, but don't forget the streaks of conservatism in working-class blocs that are turned off by Dean's shrillness.

The very essence of the argument simply makes no sense.

[tameszu]

24. Not to rain on your parade

But the only state that an Edwards ticket has a good chance of taking of the ones you listed is VA.

Edwards could put TN in play; OK is doubtful but he could make Bush spend money there (reverse holds true for Clark).

No Dem has a chance in hades of swinging SC.

Right now, the Dean people do have the advantage in the argument that they've done better in the swingable states up for grabs so far, besides VA: NH, MI, NV, marginally NM. WI will be a big indicator, though.

[dkf]

26. Thanks for that post Tameszu.

I appreciate it.

[dkf]

25. Oh good grief, I don't want to fight with Edwards people.

I like the guy.

This is more a critique of the media's ridiculous demand that Dean drop out. Like they should have any say in the matter. How silly.

[stickdog]

31. Are you planning on winning ANY of these states in 2004?

No chance WHATSOEVER in SC or OK. None. Why do we even give these states an early say in whom our candidate will be unless to protect the DLC's interests at the expense of less conservative Democrats'?

In 2000, Gore finished 5% points behind Bush in VA, so that's just on the cusp of a possibility. And we lost TN in 2000 with Tennessee native Gore heading the ticket, so I doubt that we are counting on flipping TN from red to blue this year, either.

So what is your argument here? That we need to give disproportional power to states that we don't have a chance in hell of winning in 2004? Why? How does this make a lick of sense?

Dean is in a strong second place when you consider any of the states that have voted in which any Democratic Presidential candidate has even a REMOTE possibility of winning vs. Bush! It's completely disingenuous to make the argument that this is not meaningful! It's like saying, "We should let the Republicans choose our nominee because then he will be sure to appeal to swing voters."

Finally, it's important to realize that there are three sets of "swing voters", those in the middle, those on the left and those who are generally politically apathetic. A Dean victory will keep Nader from running and keep the left from abandoning the Dems again. Dean's a different sort of politician which will help with the generally apathetic voters, and he's a fiscal conservative which will REALLY help with the middle.

[Dookus]

43. Yes...

you're right. Dean is a solid second or third in some states. I still fail to see how that strategy gets him the nomination.

As to your other point - Dean's appeal to indepents and "swing" voters hasn't yet manifested itself in the polls or the ballot box. Kerry is the only candidate currently beating Bush in the polls. Kerry is the only candidate to win more than one primary - in fact he's won 14. Why should I believe that Dean can win against Bush when he can't a) win a Democratic primary or b) not get trounced in a poll against Bush?

Which is it? Does Dean activate the populist left wing, or does he appeal to the middle? The two seem mutually exclusive to me.

[lojasmo]

57. Both, and then some

Don't forget some republicans are both fiscally conservative, and socially fair. Dean can swing some votes from the right as well.

Kerry will only push those folks to bush with his "tax and spend" values (propaganda, of course, but as we saw in IA and NH, that's what pushes people to vote)

So, to summarize, dean appeals to the populist left, the middle, and the near right.

[PurityOfEssence]

44. Okay, I'll bite

Edwards has a better chance in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and with his rural planks and populism may have an outside shot at Oklahoma.

I'll agree with you that it's tiresome how much sway is given to certain states, and this compressed primary season is absolutely loathsome, but it cuts both ways: New Hampshire was a benefit to the locals, and it has ridiculously disproportionate say-so in this folly.

Your argument was about Blue States; if you're focusing on ones that were very close, then it's a fairly valid point, except that it only really addresses Democratic voters in most cases when you're talking about a primary. How the general will play out in each case is a very different issue.

Dean worries many people because of his recklessness and combativeness. Yeah, I've got a bone to pick, and yeah, I'm a partisan, but I'm not the only one and it wasn't caused by the media. My dislike of Dean has nothing to do with how the media painted him, it comes from how I've observed him comport himself in the campaign, and it turned me off in a major way many months ago.

As for Nader, let's just say that he's hell-bent on some kind of narcissistic insanity; I wouldn't put any stock in appeasing him by having a Dean candidacy. Mapping a strategy with an eye toward what he might or might not do is sillier than looking over one's shoulder at the crossovers all the time.

So let's talk about those crossovers. Dean may excite and bring new voters in, but the number of people who will skitter away at his recklessness makes that a wash at best. Edwards' platform is very fiscally responsible and quite detailed, and his take is that America is good, but has gone astray; this will play REALLY well with the centrists. The ones of the extreme left for whom the IWR vote is a deal-breaker will be far outnumbered by the Southerners, rural voters he'll bring in.

There is literally no demographic or region that Kerry or Dean can deliver that Edwards won't also get (save for the die-hards on IWR) and there are three big demographics where Edwards beats the pants off of them: manufacturing workers, rural residents and Southerners. Junior's support is somewhat broad, but it's woefully thin.

As for the other poster who answered my first post here, the very essence of the thread is that Dean is a more viable candidate than Edwards. How is it out of place to dispute that? I sure as hell didn't bring it up.

The impetus for the thread was that Dean is a better choice than Edwards; it's hardly some kind of uncalled-for affront to contest that.

[stickdog]

49. Your points, while generally subjective like many of mine, have merit.

I'm not saying that no argument favoring Edwards over Dean can be made. I'm saying that Dean has won 5 of the last 7 races and 5 of the 7 blue states races vs. Edwards -- so the reports of Edwards rise and Dean's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

For example, consider these articles, all from today:

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=1648402

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/17/Worldandnation/Dean_s_efforts_wheeze.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/17/kerry_edwards_seek_edge_in_wis_with_focus_on_jobs/

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0217dems17.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.dems17feb17,0,2564135.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/dems17_20040217.htm

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10977804&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-dean17feb17,1,6193990.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/7970157.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/17/kerry_edwards_seek_edge_in_wis_with_focus_on_jobs/

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/107700203294172.xml

http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=2640

[Dookus]

50. still...

one wonders how eking out a second place finish, far behind the frontrunner, indicates anything other than the fact that two people are nearly tied for last place.

Tell me which state(s) Dean is going to win in order to secure the nomination.

[stickdog]

51. CA & NY (nt)

[Dookus]

53. ok...

what evidence do you have that Dean will win California and/or New York? Is he leading in the polls in those states?

I live in California, and I was reared in New York, so I'd be really interested to know.

[spooky3]

54. well-put

[amandabeech]

66. Red states where we Democrats have a prayer

plus the blue states that were close are what matters IMHO.

These states might be:

Red:

New Hampshire
Ohio
West Virginia
Missouri
Louisiana
Florida
Arizona
Nevada
Colorado
Arkansas (did it go red?)
Tennessee
North Carolina (if Edwards is on the ticket)

Blue:

Pennsylvania
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
New Mexico

By my calculations, we have to hold all blue states and pick up 10 electoral votes in the red states due to population shifts to the red states after the 2000 census.

These national polls really don't tell us that much in a close election under the EC, because small margins of victory in key states coupled with the extra weight in small states (every state gets two EV's for their senators, no matter what the population) can effect the outcome, as we saw last time.

In order to get a handle on popularity/electability under the EV system, I'd like to see polls in each state to ask:

1. For all likely voters, Bush v. each dem. candidate v. third party v. stay home.

2. For Democratic voters, each dem. candidate v. third party v. stay home.

I'd give each voter the "stay at home" and "third party" choices to give some info about turnout and Nader/Buchanan effects.

I think that the answers to these two questions, or even the #1 question would show which candidates can hang on to the blue states and which ones can pull in crucial red states.

I've seen sporadic state polls posted here, but does anyone know whether there has been an organized effort by either of the parties or one of the big polling firms to do a major survey?

Amanda

[spooky3]

55. I think this misses the most important point.

That is, both Edwards and Dean have to focus on getting more votes than Kerry, not edging each other out of second place. The same problem occurred for some people, when Clark was in the race; they lost sight on the fact that there can be only one nominee, and it does not matter who is second, third, or tenth.

Overtaking Kerry may be impossible at this point, for a number of factors--some legitimate and some I consider really unfortunate effects of a flawed process. But I don't see how that task is made any more possible by fussing about who is second and who is third and who should drop out and who should stay in, etc. Unless you have evidence that all of one's supporters would go to the other if one were to drop out, it's really beside the point.

[Casablanca]

68. Apart from influencing primaries, second place is not out of the race ...

Imagine if the media took the same kind of coverage to a NASCAR event, or the Super Bowl, or to the Triple Crown.

It's proof positive of anti-Dean spin in the media. On any other day, they'd be working overtime to make sure it was perceived as a close race, even if it wasn't true.

[stickdog]

71. Of course.

And if Dean drops out, we'll see them hyping "that gutsy underdog" Edwards 24/7!

[Casablanca]

73. Didn't need Dean dropping out to see that happen. nt

[CalebHayes]

72. That would be the past... "Our time is now!"