How is Edwards going to win the nomination?

[Renew Deal]

Can someone explain to me why Edwards isn't finished? How is he going to win the nomination?

[ananda]

1. hmm

Edwards is hampered by his decision regarding
accepting campaign money.

I think he is the best candidate with regard to
speaking out against corporations and for the
poor and working classes.

He is the only one right now that has anything
to say to me, and he's still not my ideal candidate.

Obama is pulling snakes into his pit, and if elected,
he will owe them or have to appease them.. kind of
like Lampson did after winning DeLay's district.

I will vote for Obama if I have to, but I will definitely
be holding my nose.

[Renew Deal]

2. How does that answer the question?

:shrug:

[surfermaw]

69. I wouldn't tell for any thing

All through the campaign, Obama and Hillary have been copying Edwards, even heard Huckabee doing the same thing on the day of the Caucus, in fact just as it was starting.

[Justyce]

3. He's not finished because only Iowa has held their primary.

Bill Clinton did poorly in Iowa in '92 and you see how that turned out.

[Renew Deal]

6. OK, so what is his path to the nomination?

[karynnj]

12. Clinton did not run, Edwards has likely spent as much time in Iowa over the last 4 years as

any candidate ever.

[cali]

4. It is prohibitively difficult for him to do so.

Some huge gaffe or scandal about Obama would be just about the only way.

[Renew Deal]

7. Wouldn't he have to leapfrog Hillary too?

How is that going to happen?

[cali]

9. Well, I'm assuming a fair number of Obama supporters would

go to Edwards.

[surfermaw]

70. Why I understand money has been pouring in to C.H., NC.

All day yesterday and last night most in the amount of 100 dollars or lower and 95% were new contributors

[itsrobert]

5. He finsihed a respectable Second

Are you on drugs?

[Renew Deal]

8. He's got Joementum. 2 way tie for third. ;)

Seriously, what is his path to the nomination?

[itsrobert]

11. Fuck off, he finish 2nd. Typical Hillary supporter, can't even

admit defeat to the better candidate.

[Renew Deal]

14. lol, I'm no Hillary supporter

He finished second. A weak second. It's OK to say it. It's true. So how is he going to win this nomination? I'm still waiting for a cogent answer. So far, no one in the Edwards cheerleading squad has one.

[Pharaoh]

15. Who really Knows at this point?

Geeez what's your point?

[Renew Deal]

17. Edwards needs to know.

And maybe his supporters too. Edwards only hope to win the nomination was win Iowa and roll from there. That didn't happen. What's the backup plan? My view is that I don't see any path to victory for Edwards barring some major problems with Obama AND Hillary.

[Pharaoh]

19. And you support Who?

John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed out earlier today, Edwards is still the only front-runner who will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible. His speech tonight was brilliant and moving.

[Renew Deal]

22. No one

I'm undecided still. I understand everything you're saying. I just don't get how he's going to win. I've gotten 1 1/2 good answers so far.

[bpeale]

48. what difference does it make? are you only looking to back the winner

and not the person in line with your ideals or positions? geez. get a grip! i support him because he has the best ideas for ALL americans & will support him indefinitely. i will write his name in on the ballot if i have to. that's how much i believe in his message.

[Renew Deal]

50. I think that's a seperate issue

I agree that you should support someone based on priciple. A reasonable answer is "I love Edwards even though I'm not sure he can win." I've been there before too.

[Stop Cornyn]

10. Hillary (not Obama) has a huge lead in the Super Tuesday states.

If Hillary had won Iowa, there is every reason to believe she'd have had momentum going into New Hampshire, and -- given her pre-Iowa standing in New Hampshire she likely would have won, and with two early wins -- and given her wide pre-Iowa lead in Nevada -- she likely would have won there, too, and with all three wins, she'd likely run the table. That scenario would have effectively ended the campaign for everyone.

If Hillary came in second and either Edwards or Obama came in third, the media would spin it as a two person race in New Hampshire between Hillary and whoever won Iowa (the MSM would ignore the third place finisher the same way they are currently ignoring Richardson who's getting ZERO credit for finishing in fourth place ahead of some excellent opponents). That scenario would have effectively ended the campaign for the third place finisher.

Because Edwards beat Hillary, the MSM is emphasizing the race as a three way race. Edwards has gotten good face time on the news last night and this morning. This is keeping his campaign in the voter's mind.

By Super Tuesday, the race will be down to two candidates (I don't mean that literally because there will probably be three or four candidates in the race for the next month, yet if there is a pattern in the early contests of two candidates performing better than the others in more states than not, all but those two candidates will likely have devolved into "also rans"). If Hillary came in second in Iowa, it is clear that those two candidates would be her and the winner in Iowa, but because she came in third, there remains the possibility that the two candidates who will vie on Super Tuesday will be Edwards and Obama.

In order to be one of the two candidates who goes into the head-to-head of Super Tuesday, Edwards needs to continue to beat Hillary in most of the early states.

If Edwards can finish ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire or Nevada or South Carolina (he probably needs to beat her in two of these three states, but again, beating Hillary is more critical than winning), Edwards goes into Super Tuesday as the alternative to Obama.

70% of the Iowa caucus participants chose change over experience in the status quo system. If this is an election about change, Edwards offers a different, more detailed, and much more progressive model for change as compared to Obama.

[cali]

13. I think that's about right.

But the odds of Edwards beating her in NH, SC or NV, are quite small.

[Stop Cornyn]

24. We have seen campaigns collapse in New Hampshire after failing to meet expectations in Iowa. It

remains to be seen if this happens to Hillary. If it does, Edwards may beat her in NH, NV, and SC.

Also, all of this assumes that Obama can capitalize on his Iowa win with a New Hampshire win. I consider that somewhat likely, but it is certainly not a foregone conclusion because winning Iowa will subject Obama to scrutiny, and his campaign was much stronger running as the challenger to Hillary-as-frontrunner, and his campaign took on an ugly tone when he became the frontrunner.

When I call the tone of the Obama-as-frontrunner campaign as "ugly," I mainly mean disconsonant with Obama's hope meme and not necessarily uglier than Hillary's tone or Edwards' tone, but it feels uglier because such a tone is so irreconcilable with Obama's "brand identity" of hope.

[gasperc]

33. there's also a DEBATE saturday

it could be a game changer

[Renew Deal]

38. I agree

I think the debate is going to be BIG.

[Pharaoh]

45. what times the debate?

what network?

[cali]

34. There's only four days between IA and NH

It's not enough time for Edwards to overtake Clinton or Obama. And as for the tone of Obama's campaign, it's clear as a bell, that real voters couldn't disagree with you more. They count.

[Stop Cornyn]

42. It's probably too little time for Edwards to catch Obama, but Hilary will be moving down as Edwards

moves up and that will make it closer. Plus Hillary may have to resort to some negative advertising to try and slow Obama, and that could kick as hard as it shoots.

Edwards can go against Obama with the theme "here is Obama model for change and here's mine -- pick the one you like" which isn't too negative.

Hillary, on the other hand, has to completely redefine herself or redefine Obama. I think the second path is easier for Hillary (and what Mark Penn is best at) and will involve negative advertising.

[lisainmilo]

80. I disagree....I know what the polls say, but....

John Edwards works very hard.....it is not over until it's over. John Edwards has a great chance of placing 2nd again...People want change.

[thoughtanarchist]

20. Good analysis. Furthermore...

The "conventional wisdom" out there today is that Hillary is going to have to go on the attack to reclaim some market share in the political landscape. Who will be the target? Obama, of course.

If that does happen, it puts Edwards in the fortunate position to be the able to rise up as the HRC and BHO camps drag each other through the mud.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. .

[Renew Deal]

18. How does that answer the question?

:shrug:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. .

[Renew Deal]

26. Keeps on losing?

:shrug:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. outta here.

good luck to you.

[Renew Deal]

32. It's a simple question

Edwards supporters seem to be unable to answer it. What's Edwards path to the nomination? Still waiting.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. .

I see you got satisfaction below

[Yukari Yakumo]

73. What an ef'in coward.

Too scared to stand by your words? Why are you even here if you won't even stand by what you say?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

74. I will stand by this

Fuck YOU

[redqueen]

21. 1. Well he'd have to win a few states now wouldn't he?

2. He's not finished because it's far from over.

3. Redundant.


Jesus.

[Renew Deal]

23. On #2

It was far from over but Biden and Dodd knew they were finished. I'm trying to find out how Edwards is different.

[salin]

27. While Edwards has been far out fundraised by Clinton and Obama,

I think his fundraising was far above Biden and Dodd. I also think that Edwards has a larger constituency behind him than either Biden or Dodd had. I think it would be a long haul against the odds for Edwards, but I think he has a glimmer of a chance (if he were the last one standing as an alternative to Clinton and Biden) which I don't hink the other two had.

While undecided, I leaned Dodd and am sorry to see him go. I also think Biden added some foreign policy gravitas to the debate. But both were even longer shots than Edwards who had a semblance of a following left over from the last go round.

Seriously, Edwards would have to get windfall donations (that is money that people would have given to other candidates who then dropped out) in order to keep going. I think it comes down to the fundraising for him to keep him in enough races to get a shot.

[redqueen]

31. I think the number of votes they got is a bit of a difference.

Also the number of delegates.

[DrFunkenstein]

29. He Needed Big Money to Compete in Florida, New York and California

He doesn't have the cash needed to jumpstart his anemic organizations there and run expensive TV ads in states where it is too big to do retail politics. He is toast - unless he completely SMASHES everyone else in NH, which is highly unlikely. He always needed a decisive victory in Iowa, and he didn't even get a marginal one.

[bigwillq]

30. Because it was only one state

Our last Democratic president didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire but still went on to win the White House.

[Renew Deal]

36. That's meaningless

Can someone give me a real answer? DOes he have a hidden base of voters somewhere? Is he getting a massive money boost? Shit, tell me he'll win SC and roll from there. Anything.

[Strawman]

35. He needs it to be a two person race heading into Super Tuesday

He needs to do better than expected in NH, win Nevada and SC (or maybe second in SC). Also he has to be in the top two in Florida. Then he has a shot on Super Tuesday.

He needs to knock out Hillary and hope Super Tuesday voters have misgivings about Obama. And he also needs organized labor to unite behind him and turnout the vote for him.

Probably unlikely since Hillary has enough money to stay in it until Super Tuesday. He might just end up hurting Obama if he is still around then.

[Renew Deal]

37. Thanks!

It's tough getting answers. I don't see a scenario where Hillary drops out before 2/5. I agree that he needs to win somewhere. Florida is meaningless.

[Pharaoh]

49. You will never be satisfied with any answer

<img src="">

[Renew Deal]

51. Mature

Says a lot about your point of view.

[Pharaoh]

57. Your right

I am a retard for even bothering to argue with you.....

Have fun.

[Renew Deal]

58. Are there only 3 coherent Edwards supporters on DU?

I've gotten a few good answers. The rest is either head in the clouds, ignorant, or irrationally combative. Some even fall into multiple categories.

[SaveElmer]

39. He is finished...

There is no logical pathway from campaigning for 6 years in Iowa and still losing handily to overcoming up to a 20 point deficit in New Hampshire...

Outside chance he beats Hillary...he won't beat Obama...

He's done

[Renew Deal]

41. My view

is the same as yours. I just don't see it. That's why I'm asking.

[Papagoose]

46. Why are you asking?

No matter what anyone says, you just argue with their answer.

[Renew Deal]

52. Look around

I've told a few people I agree, including the one below. This is a discussion forum and I'm discussing. Do you have anything to add?

[abburdlen]

43. Edwards can win

if most of Clinton's support was based on her being the inevitable nominee. If she's perceived
as damaged goods and if her numbers break away at least evenly between Edwards and Obama then
it becomes a two man race. An Edwards theme of hope alone not bringing change- it takes a fight,
could overtake Obama and then ding Edwards wins the nomination.


That being said;
1, I don't think most of Clinton's lead was that soft
2, What support Clinton does lose will likely be to Obama

Edwards could still get the nomination but it's a long shot.

[Renew Deal]

44. I like this answer

This makes a lot of sense.

[Azathoth]

47. He isn't. He's been campaigning for five years straight and he hasn't won a single state

And judging from the polls, he ain't gonna win one anytime soon.

[readmoreoften]

53. Talk about sore winners. Ugly. /nt

[Renew Deal]

54. Thoughtful answer

:wtf: I don't support anyone, so I didn't win anything. Second, what is ugly about asking what Edwards path to victory is?

[cboy4]

55. You always seem to need to have a lot explained to you.

No offense of course.

[Renew Deal]

56. lol

Is that all you got?

[cboy4]

59. I know you're embarrassed, but Bleachers, it's a fair

point.

You're constantly asking questions and pleading for people to help you understand the political process.

I mean, you'd agree with that, right?

You could always watch CSPAN because it breaks things down to a level I think people like you can understand. And maybe you won't have to constantly ask so many questions.

:thumbsup:

[Renew Deal]

61. Prove it.

Go ahead and prove it. This is not a question about the political process. It's a question about a candidates viability. Obviously you are incapable or unwilling to answer that so you attack me. You still have a chance to answer the question. Maybe you can redeem yourself.

[cboy4]

63. Bleachers, I've read your writings upthread and you're

either desperately unable to comprehend how the American political process works or you're intentionally acting stupid in order to provoke John Edwards supporters.

Otherwise, why would you ask such a question about a candidate who finished second in only the first of a whopping four dozen states?

It makes no sense, which is why you're fighting with everyone in this thread.

That's something I'm sure you're able to recognize, even if indeed you're not the best at politics.


on edit...typo

[Renew Deal]

64. You must be incapable of answering the question.

So you attack me. If you read some of the answers up thread you would have seen that I agreed with some of them. Is that untrue?

You finally brought up something worth discussing though. "Otherwise, why would you ask such a question about a candidate who finished second in only the first of a whopping four dozen states?"

Edwards was hoping to win Iowa and roll from there. Do you disagree?

Either way, what's his plan to win the nomination?

You can say that there's 48 states left all you want, but that's not a plan for victory. How is Edwards going to win? That's the question.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. .

[Renew Deal]

68. <<<crickets>>>

Shocking

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Major Obama scandal

That is his only chance.

[TeamJordan23]

76. Or a Bill Clinton scandel.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[bdamomma]

62. I think the stupid media is putting this delusional thought

in the public arena, we all know how the media is trying to manipulate the voters and telling us who to vote for, Iowa caucus is just one event and we have many to go. It sounds like the media is projecting a winner before the election!!! stupid a$$es.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. People are just finally going to realize

that he's FDR, JFK, and Mahatma Ghandi all rolled into one.

[Moloch]

67. He's not...

He had one shot to gain momentum and, obviously, he failed. There is no trajectory now for him to win the nomination.. The sooner we rally behind one candidate the better our chances are in the general election. Edwards is roadkill, and needs to step aside for the good of the party.

[Yukari Yakumo]

71. Simple, He can't

While the Edwards crowd love to bring up he was out-spent in Iowa, they neglect to say he probably spent more time in Iowa than all of the other candidates combined.

The reality is that Edwards needed the win because he needed the momentum to pull an '04 Kerry. It didn't happen. He barely registers in most of the remaining states. And he thinks the people will gravitate towards him? Uh... no, John, they'll move towards the guy who won the thing.

[mruddy]

78. Obama spent the most days in Iowa....

One of several available links -
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahPxOhpleQAU&refer=home

In reference to Edwards...

Hours after officially announcing his candidacy on Dec. 28, 2006, he flew to Des Moines for his first campaign rally.

Since then, he has spent 86 days in Iowa, compared with 89 for Obama and 72 for Clinton

[calteacherguy]

72. Edwards will endorse Obama, then some time later, Clinton will endorse Obama.

It's only a question of when.

[bpeale]

77. as an edwards supporter, edwards cannot promise MY vote to someone else

i will vote for edwards in the GE if i have to WRITE his name in ... and yes, even if that means a republican will get into office. the MSM is not going to choose my candidate for me & there are just too many troubling issues with HRC & BO's stances on many issues.

[Thrill]

75. He's not going to win it

[ecstatic]

79. I think he should bow out now, the race b/w Clinton and Obama is

just too exciting. Not just Edwards, but all the others who are still holding on. All eyes will be on the Dems and we WILL win because this is going to be a competition like nobody has ever seen. For the first time, I think a majority of Americans will pay attention and become involved--and they will vote for their favorite. At this point, Edwards is a distraction, since he didn't win Iowa.