BREAKING: Edwards Dropping Out Of Race
Just in from the Associated Press:
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voter's sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
Immediate significance: This is now a two-person race, meaning tomorrow's Dem debate will be just Hillary and Obama. And the scramble to win over Edwards supporters, surrogates and donors -- not to say the support of Edwards himself -- will now begin in earnest between the two top Dems.
More in a bit.
Late Update: Edwards will speak about this at 1 P.M. today, I've confirmed.
Late Update: Edwards will be joined by Elizabeth and their children today for his dropout speech, and after that they will go to Musicians Village and do some work on NOLA Habitat for Humanity houses, I'm told.
In other words, the anti-poverty work that launched his campaign will continue.
Late Update: Edwards won't be endorsing "for the moment," according to an adviser.
Late Update: Here's some detail on the battle for Edwards delegates and supporters that's now underway between the Hillary and Obama campaigns.
Comments (108)
westofrome wrote on January 30, 2008 9:13 AM:MSNBC just mentioned an underreported exit poll stat: the second choice of the majority of Edwards voters in SC was Obama - which cuts against the argument that white Edwards support will switch from Edwards to Clinton.
WWNPHD wrote on January 30, 2008 9:13 AM:Awesome.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 30, 2008 9:13 AM:Damn it. Now I get Hobson's choice in the Ohio primary. I will stay home.
np wrote on January 30, 2008 9:14 AM:let the begging begin!
Thethinredline wrote on January 30, 2008 9:14 AM:Damn, another candidate ive donated too bites the dust.
My money is on him endorsing Obama on Saturday.
Daniel wrote on January 30, 2008 9:15 AM:This is huge and also means we won't have a brokered convention since Edwards won't be able to get a significant number of delegates. It's also anyone's guess how this affects Super Tuesday, and I wonder if Edwards will endorse anyone.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 9:17 AM:It will be interesting to see what the polling says now. There is the argument that edwards base, poor white, is clinton's strongest base of support, other than the over 60 crowd. Then there is the flip argument that edward's voters are hungering for change, which would put them in the obama camp as the clintons want us to relive the 90's and give the clintons a third term in the white house. It's getting very, very interesting.
Ban Johnson wrote on January 30, 2008 9:18 AM:Huge! -- nobody saw this one coming. I honestly have no idea who this helps right now. It probably depends on the state.
Good for Edwards.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 9:18 AM:Even though I'm an Obama supporter, I'm sad to see Edwards exit. He's an eloquent, passionate voice for the poor and oppressed, which get short shrift in the campaigns of Obama and Clinton, who are courting the middle class. Adieu Edwards and God bless you.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 30, 2008 9:18 AM:Wow. This is a huge blow to Obama.
It's not a question of how Edwards' voters will split - they're likely to back Obama by at least a small margin. The real blow comes in all of the CDs that Hillary will win on February 5. Edwards drew almost no votes in heavily black areas, meaning that he didn't pull delegates from the CDs where Obama runs most strongly. But he was often cracking 15% in lily-white, relatively poor districts, and every time he did, he effectively pulled one delegate away from Hillary. Translated to a national scale, it probably meant 50-100 fewer Super Tuesday delegates for the Clinton campaign, but perhaps a dozen fewer for Obama.
The upshot: this hurts Obama, and it hurts bad. Even an Edwards endorsement probably won't fully compensate for the damage it does to Obama's viability, although that would somewhat cushion the blow. Tough to see Obama coming out ahead anymore in the Super Tuesday delegate count.
Unfortunately now Hillary will get all the racist white southern vote, which obviously exists in places like Oklahoma...but perhaps racist people are also sexist, which wouldn't be surprising, so who knows. Obviously Oklahoma was a lost cause anyway. Hopefully he endorses Obama and hopefully his supporters actually go there. If he doesn't endorse Obama that will make him the biggest hypocrite, after all that crap about change vs status quo, the only choice is Obama.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 30, 2008 9:21 AM:Via the AP:
"The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. "
He should have stuck it out through Feb 5th. I'll bet it's too late to take him off my state's ballot. If that's true, he still has my vote.
glblank wrote on January 30, 2008 9:21 AM:The comment of Hobsons Choice of the Dems is absurd as if it were stated of a choice of Obama/Guiliani in the general. In short someone needs a serious head extraction.
jose wrote on January 30, 2008 9:22 AM:attn gen. edwards? rush limpbra cant be happy...
no question it helps obama. i expect an edwards endorsement of obama soon, too.
I completely concur. With Edwards out of the race, HRC is going to win. No doubt about it at this point.
What caused him to make this decision? JRE was in a position of (relative) power before dropping out. Not viable, maybe, but definitely in a position to throw the race Obama's or HRC's way..
Oh well, fuck it. It's been a nice run, I guess.
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 30, 2008 9:24 AM:The handwriting's on the wall, and I think Elizabeth needs him home. Why not today?
np wrote on January 30, 2008 9:25 AM:In reference to southern white racists now voting for clinton, maybe they are just dumb enough to still vote for Edwards, he will still be on the ballots I assume...
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 9:25 AM:The operative word here is "immediate". Edwards will not immediately endorse a candidate. He'll probably wait until Monday to endorse, thus sucking up precious news cycles for the candidate of choice.
Jill wrote on January 30, 2008 9:26 AM:I wonder if there is a development with Elizabeth that is causing this unexpected exit this early. I fully expected him to stay in until after Super Tuesday. But after being in the public eye almost constantly, she hasn't been seen much lately. I hope she is OK.
rod wrote on January 30, 2008 9:27 AM:too bad.
He was my only candidate, now i dont have a voice no more, fuck usa, from now on im gonna try to survive at whatever cost, fuck the brainless people, im done with this shit!
I don't really understand how Edwards dropping out means Hillary will win?
I always saw Edwards as splitting the "change" vote with Obama.
Nindid wrote on January 30, 2008 9:28 AM:I bet that Edwards will wait until after Feb 5 to endorse. If Obama is viable at that point then he probably gets the endorsement. If not then everyone closes ranks around Clinton.
Whether this hurts Obama or not, he was going to have to win this thing outright at some point. In a straight delegate race on Feb 5th he was always going to be hurting.
The best part about this is that it lessens the chance of a long vicious battle for the nomination.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 9:28 AM:Angry Vet,
I'm not going to fall into the pessimistic trap, but there is no question this helps Hillary for the reasons flyonthewall describes.
Edwards peeled off white votes from Hillary which benefited Obama. That cushion is now gone. I don't understand, if Edwards truly favors Obama why he didn't wait until after Super Tuesday.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 9:29 AM:Evan-
See FlyOnTheWall at 9:18 am. Very cogent analysis.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 30, 2008 9:29 AM:The comment of Hobsons Choice of the Dems is absurd as if it were stated of a choice of Obama/Guiliani in the general. In short someone needs a serious head extraction. Yes, you. If you really think there's as big a difference between Clinton and Obama as between either and Guiliani, you're an idiot. Or maybe you just have zero reading comprehension and thought I meant I'd stay home in November. Not hardly.
Clinton and Obama are both centrist triangulators, distinguished only by rhetorical style. But either one is vastly preferable to any Republican. As between them, though, I just don't have a dog in that hunt. Edwards was the candidate who tried to talk about the issues I think need to be talked about.
CranialRectalLoopback wrote on January 30, 2008 9:29 AM:There must have been a setback with his wife and he decided that fighting through the convention was not worth it since he appears to have little chance of winning.
NoBoy wrote on January 30, 2008 9:31 AM:So much for all the talking heads bs about Edwards as convention kingmaker.
Fly On The Wall has it exactly right. Obama's math did not allow for Edwards leaving the campaign before Tuesday if ever; he needed HRC to lose those CDs Edwards would claim but that he wn't pick up.
Having played the race card and made himself the black candidate for his big SC win Obama has now screwed himself. Florida was only the beginning.
Wait, what do I hear?
"Wah Wah Wah Not Fair and Edwards is a big fat racist hypocrite" cry Hussein's fans.
Oh this is good, really good...
the obama camp is almost giddy about this. as mentioned by westofrome, the sc exit polls show the telling details: that well over half of edwards supporters 2nd choice was barack. and 1/4 more were unsure. with the new CT poll at 40-40, it helps edwards.
please refrain from calling southern dems racist. the racist southern dem is a dead breed (except for maybe and ex-pres out there).
J/union wrote on January 30, 2008 9:31 AM:in reference to the southern white racist, i take great offence to that. I wish John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth all the best.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 9:32 AM:Maybe he doesn't favor Obama. That impression was always assumed anyway, based off of their earlier debates back when HRC was the frontrunner.
Good points above. Barack Obama now needs to win this one on his own. Can he do it? I think if he did, on 2/5, that would be an unbelievable upset victory.
I have always predicted HRC would win the nomination. Of course, I have never supported her.
Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 9:32 AM:""Wah Wah Wah Not Fair and Edwards is a big fat racist hypocrite" cry Hussein's fans."
Nothing says "douchebag" louder than a person injecting Hussein in their comments.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 30, 2008 9:33 AM:Evan,
It's a fair question, so let me try to spell it out. If 15% of the voters in a given district were going to vote for Edwards, and every single one switches his vote to Obama, that's not necessarily a good thing for the Obama camp. In many cases, instead of splitting 5 delegates 2-2-1, putting all of Edwards' votes on Obama's ballot line results in a 3-2 split in favor of Hillary.
Of course, not all Edwards voters will gravitate to Obama. But even if they did, this would still hurt his campaign. He did better with Edwards cracking 15% in Hillary's core districts than he possibly can by doing 10-15% better himself in those very same CDs. That's the bottom line here, not some impossible-to-resolve debate about which way Edwards' backers will split.
Kind of hate to say it but dropping out now is the classiest thing to do. I never cared much for that kingmaker theme. Seems more democratic to just let the people have their way via the votes.
Easy folks. He's just getting an early start on Edwards12.
Bill R. wrote on January 30, 2008 9:37 AM:Status quo vs. change. Most Edwards people will break for Obama probably by a small margin. Exit polls on second choice would suggest that.
spencer wrote on January 30, 2008 9:38 AM:Well, that sucks. Thanks a lot, MSM, for effectively writing Edwards out of the script before it even began.
That's not to say that neither of the other two can win or would be effective presidents - I think they both could - but only to note that it would have been a much richer, more rewarding campaign with three viable candidates to choose from. Especially since Edwards has been hitting themes that neither Hilary nor Obama seem the slightest bit interested in.
nogo war wrote on January 30, 2008 9:38 AM:My brain saw this coming. Edwards would come out with a plan..then the others.
Edwards was virtually ignored by the meda..
Again my heart wanted a fighting progressive....no
That being said...I want A Dem landslide in Nov. With 60 in the Senate and veto proof in the House. Obama can bring record turn-out. Clintons cannot.
Oh Dammit...
Obama needs HAMMER away at Hillary's electability problems tomorrow night. He needs to smile alot, spend most of his time ignoring her and refusing to engage, but, when he does engage, he needs to remind voters constantly of her persistently high negative numbers, and explain why she is the opposite of "safe" to go against the GOP in the Autumn.
The data is clear: Obama is much more competitive than HRC against McCain.
He needs to say it.
julio ointment wrote on January 30, 2008 9:40 AM:"Wah Wah Wah Not Fair and Edwards is a big fat racist hypocrite" cry Hussein's fans.
Ah, who said anything remotely like this? Oh, right - no one.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 9:40 AM:That's true flyonthewall, but I refuse to be pessimistic about this. Will the hunger for change trump reliving the 90's? We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
By the way, if it goes down to the wire between the clintons and obama, we may still have a brokered convention because of the 20% superdelegates. I hope not because that will result in some really, really pissed-off obama supporters or supporters of the clintons going into the general, which the party doesn't want or need. I am for letting the people decide, not the political elite.
VaDem wrote on January 30, 2008 9:40 AM:But that assumes that a district would go 55% Hillary, 30% Obama, 15% Edwards. If Obama can get to 40% in some of those districts then Edwards 15% would put him over the top.
Bottom line - Obama gets his one on one shot at Hillary. Either he wins or he doesn't, and if he doesn't he can't blame Edwards.
I can tell you for example that this turns my parents 2 MA votes from Edwards to Obama, and they are in the over 60 dempgraphic that is supposed to favor HRC.
marcus wrote on January 30, 2008 9:41 AM:He better endorse Obama before Feb 5, if he really takes the cowards way out and waits then he is showing he really doesn't support change all that much. He needs to embrace Obama's campaign and go campaign for him, at least until the 5th. I hope that is what he is going to say today, but I doubt it.
Billy Glad wrote on January 30, 2008 9:42 AM:And, sadly, that's the end of Obama, no matter whom Edwards endorses. Kennedy should have endorsed Edwards.
Steve wrote on January 30, 2008 9:42 AM:Among most of the Edwards supporters I've heard, there is a clear preference for Obama, and a distrust of Hillary. So I think Edwards' departure will help Obama more than Hillary.
markg8 wrote on January 30, 2008 9:45 AM:As an Obama supporter I say God bless John Edwards. He was my favorite candidate in 2004 and my second favorite this cycle.
I hope Obama makes him the Attorney General. John's big supporters at the trial lawyers convention were floating the idea recently and the Cornerites are terrified of the thought. Edwards can do a great public service prosecuting crimes committed by the Republicans against the constitution and the American public for the next 6 years before he runs again.
Nuf wrote on January 30, 2008 9:46 AM:I think he might wait until AFTER February 5th to endorse Obama, not to play it safe but to help soften the blow after Feb 5. No matter what happens on the 5th, it doesn't look like Obama has a chance of doing better than Hillary. An Edwards endorsement on February 6 might help soften the inevitable blow. Then it's on the Maryland, DC, and Virginia, all of which Obama should be able to win with/without Edwards' support.
ChrisO wrote on January 30, 2008 9:50 AM:It's interesting how Obama supporters' sense of entitlement extends to the voters who support other candidates. I suspect this is because they just can't fathom how anyone could support Hillary. Well, it's my understanding that in races leading up to South Carolina, Edwards voters had Hillary as their second choice, and in Nevada, a significant majority of Edwards voters went to Hillary when they had to choose. However, I haven't followed it that closely so I could be mistaken.
I do know that before South Carolina I haven't seen any Obama supporter provide any evidence that Edwards people will choose Obama, but I have heard many state it as fact. Now Obama supporters cling to evrything that transpired in South Carolina as if it was the only primary that really mattered. If you think Obama's margin of victory there was an anomaly, then you have to take other indicators, like what exit polls show about Edwards' voter preferences, with a grain of salt. If you don't think it was an anomaly, then you must think that Obama is going to go forward and win a bunch of states by 20 point margins. Which is it? You can't pick and choose which statistics actually have bearing and which have no meaning (like Obama losing 75 percetn of the white vote).
And if you want to point to exit polls in South Carolina as being meaningful, can you dismiss the vote in Florida as not being an indicator of Hillary's popularity? I know there's no delegates at stake (seriously, you don't have to say it again), but it was a level playing field, everyone was on the ballot, and voters indicated an overwhelming preference for Hillary. I'd say real voters casting real ballots are a little bit more reliable than exit polls.
zonk wrote on January 30, 2008 9:51 AM:I think a lot of your just aren't giving Edwards much credit...
I gotta believe that he chose now to drop out rather than after 2/5 because he and his strategists saw the calculus and figured that his leaving the race was better for Obama than his staying in the race.
There's no earthly reason to leave 6 days before Super Tuesday unless you think your exit helps a second, preferred-over-the-other candidate.
Given everything we know about Edwards and Clinton -- I just cannot buy that he wants to help Hillary. Unless she's basically promised him any spot he wants on her ticket or in her administration, I gotta beleive that this was a calculated move to help Obama.
Rich wrote on January 30, 2008 9:52 AM:Frankly, I am not so sure that Edwards backs Obama. He may be for change, but he clearly telegraphed in the debates that he thinks Obama lacks experience. John was obviously astonished in the SC debate at Obama's contention that no cap on credit card interest rates was better than a 30% cap because 30% was too high. Considering John's fight for financially disadvantaged Americans, this didn't sit wel with him. There were other moments in the SC debate where it was clear that Edwards was edging away from Obama. And then of course there was the private meeting with HRC after the debate. I guess we'll see. He has to endorse before Tuesday, because after the vote is in his endorsement will likely be inconsequential.
swan of blue wrote on January 30, 2008 9:54 AM:What if it's hype? What a way to get media attention for an important speech about poverty, and a declaration of reaching a fund-raising goal for the month/quarter. If it's a speech that's been scheduled for awhile, I'm thinking (hoping!) that they're making this move to get media there. There's been no formal announcement that it will be a withdrawal, just "2 advisers said."
Go John!
And if he really does withdraw, it will be a sad, sad day for me.
tear stained eye wrote on January 30, 2008 9:54 AM:Edwards supporters fall mainly in the demographics of Clinton supporters.
Obama will pick up the ABCs who supported Edwards and some liberals but the rest will go to Clinton. From the NYTimes blog yesterday it appeared Edwards was to be making a push in states Obama needed to win so maybe that helps Obama. Overall, I think this is a plus for Clinton.
westofrome wrote on January 30, 2008 9:13 AM:
MSNBC just mentioned an underreported exit poll stat: the second choice of the majority of Edwards voters in SC was Obama - which cuts against the argument that white Edwards support will switch from Edwards to Clinton.
Dorothy....we're not in Oz anymore....that was in SC...stupid.
EighthGrader wrote on January 30, 2008 9:56 AM:FlyOnTheWall,
You either flunked algebra, or you don't actually understand how the delegate allocation works. Instead of me proving that you're wrong, I'll leave it to the reader: prove that the statement that (y / (y + z)) is always less than ((x + y) / (x + y + z)) for all positive x, y and z. ("x" is the number of Edwards votes, "y" is the number of Obama votes and "z" is the number of HRC votes.)
This thing was never going to be over on February 5th with or without Edwards. Maybe it costs Obama delegates, maybe not. Those of you saying this seals it for Hillary are over-reacting. It gives people a clear choice between Obama and Hillary. The dynamic of the race will change in ways we can't yet anticipate.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 9:58 AM:It's interesting how the Hillary supporters like ChrisO start making stuff up about what Obama supporters (at least in this thread) have been saying. It was reasonably civil until the Hillarybot showed up. What a suprise!
Adam wrote on January 30, 2008 9:58 AM:Edwards should have stayed in the race. Why should he dropped out he brought serious issues to the table and made Obama and Clinton adress them. I'm an Obama supporter but have a lot of respect for John.
Gregor wrote on January 30, 2008 9:59 AM:FlyonTheWall at 9:18AM had the best analysis. I agree, the Edwards w/d hurts Obama vis a vis the math of Congressional Districts in awarding delegates.
Fellow Obama supporters: we have a steep uphill climb.
The bad news: we are still up against the machine.
The good news: a bull market climbs a wall of worry.
p_lukasiak wrote on January 30, 2008 10:00 AM:I agree that Dems are now left with a Hobson's choice....
and I gotta go with Hillary now. My biggest reason for supporting Edwards was that he represented my ideas, and had the experience to understand exactly what he would be up against in terms of effecting change. And while I know that Hillary will attempt less change than Obama, she at least understands what she will be up against.
In eight years, I'll probably be supporting Obama. This year, he just doesn't have to chops to get the job done.
bajsa wrote on January 30, 2008 10:02 AM:Let me get this right... The Clinton supporters say it's good for Clinton and the Obama supporters say it's good for Obama. I predict that none of the predictions will be correct (including this one). Stop predicting and start working for your chosen candidate, fight fair and then support the eventual winner!
P.S. I also hope for an Attorney General Edwards in the future.
Rod wrote on January 30, 2008 10:03 AM:I can't believe what i read from Obama supporters, " John Edwards must endorse Obama before feb 5th and campaign for him"
This is no sense ,I'm a huge Edwards supporter and his crowd always follow him for one reason, he's a fighter, he's been talking about corporate greed like nobody else, about poverty, unequal outcomes many issues than the other candidates wont even mention, what i always liked about him was the real approach to the problems, we gotta tackle down whats hurting us, beat it, defeat it and we all gotta sacrifice. All i hear from Obama is that he would be the messiah that would bring "change" to this mess, the mediator between the "us" the real workers and the Exxon board of directors, that he's gonna have a party where my sick brothers and William Maguire would be invited, give me a break!!! This guy is gutless man that cant even confront Hillary Clinton without pissing on his pants and having all of his friends coming in his defense because he cant even defend himself!
I will support HRC over Obama only cause i see in her more balls and backbone than what i see on Obama i dont even wanna go to the issues cause i don't even know the substance of his policies maybe he can erase the word change form his mouth a little and actually talk about substance in the incoming debate.
Anonymous, if anything, the argument that Edwards was pulling from Clinton support was stronger in SC than in the other Feb. 5th states such as CA and NY.
Care to explain how Edwards supporters are more likley to go to Clinton in these states than in SC?
Decatur Dem wrote on January 30, 2008 10:04 AM:grover_rover @9:18 Unfortunately now Hillary will get all the racist white southern vote
Your implication being that Edwards had the backing of racists? That's the stupidest comment I've read in months. Why would they want to vote for any Democratic candidate? You must know a better class of racists than I do.
JohnSFL wrote on January 30, 2008 10:05 AM:p_lukasiak,
Explain to me how Edwards has so much more experience than Obama? You mean experience running for President? I don't see the experience rationale for going from Edwards to Clinton. Not that I buy the experience argument for Clinton either. In terms of HillaryExperience Chelsea is more qualified than Obama or Edwards.
p_lukasiak wrote on January 30, 2008 10:07 AM:re: Edwards voters second choices...
I wouldn't put too much significance on that. I think that the "second choice" decision at that point was more a question of slowing the momentum one candidate or the other in order to keep Edwards in the race. Once he's out, Edwards voters are stuck with a real choice....
Rod wrote on January 30, 2008 10:08 AM:I can't believe what i read from Obama supporters, " John Edwards must endorse Obama before feb 5th and campaign for him"
This is no sense ,I'm a huge Edwards supporter and his crowd always follow him for one reason, he's a fighter, he's been talking about corporate greed like nobody else, about poverty, unequal outcomes many issues than the other candidates wont even mention, what i always liked about him was the real approach to the problems, we gotta tackle down whats hurting us, beat it, defeat it and we all gotta sacrifice. All i hear from Obama is that he would be the messiah that would bring "change" to this mess, the mediator between the "us" the real workers and the Exxon board of directors, that he's gonna have a party where my sick brothers and William Maguire would be invited, give me a break!!! This guy is gutless man that cant even confront Hillary Clinton without pissing on his pants and having all of his friends coming in his defense because he cant even defend himself!
I will support HRC over Obama only cause i see in her more balls and backbone than what i see on Obama i dont even wanna go to the issues cause i don't even know the substance of his policies maybe he can erase the word change form his mouth a little and actually talk about substance in the incoming debate.
Annon at 9:58, that's the way it has always been. It's reasonably civil until the clintons' trolls show up. Then they start stirring up animosity and then they claim that obama supporters are the ones stirring it up.
It's kind of like the race baiting game the clintons were playing before NEW HAMPSHIRE, not sc, but NEW HAMPSHIRE. I really wish the media would get the gd facts right. Of course the clintons wouldn't be playing the race card before sc, that would be stupid, it was NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Anon in Indy wrote on January 30, 2008 10:12 AM:I truly wish Edwards and his family the best as they focus on his wife's fight against cancer, our country's fight against poverty, and our capital's fight against corruption. I wish he had stayed in the primary, for now there is no candidate who appeals to both my head and my heart. I'm certain his remaining in the race would have been best for the country, but I am just as certain this choice is best for his family.
Good luck Mr. Edwards.
James wrote on January 30, 2008 10:12 AM:Edwards' supporters backed him because they wanted change and he was about "real change", whereas Clinton they know will change little if anything and Obama's brand of change didn't altogether convince them. But with each passing day, Obama is gaining more and more credibility along with some pretty heavyweight endorsements. He has also built momentum and demonstrated an no too shabby degree of electibility, especially as he appeals to disenchanted Republicans, something hitherto almost unheard of.
Logically then, assuming Edwards supporters still have any hope of change, they're gonna vote Obama, never mind what color he is, since to their probable way of thinking, at least they stand a hope in hell of change with him.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 30, 2008 10:12 AM:EighthGrader:
Let's use an actual example to show you how this works. Say HRC draws 51%, Obama 34%, and Edwards 15%. So: (34/(34+55))=38.2, and ((15+34)/(51+34+15))=49. So yes, Obama draws more votes, and will in every case Edwards' supporters switch to vote for him.
But that's not true of delegate allocation. In a 5 delegate district that splits 55-30-15, delegates are awarded by multiplying the percentage of the vote by the number of delegates. So, in this example, that's 2.55, 1.7, and 0.75, which yields 2 delegates for HRC, two for Obama, and one for Edwards. Now, if all those Edwards supporters switch to Obama, HRC wins, 51%-49% - and takes 3 delegates to Obama's 2.
To recap, Obama can win a much higher percentage of the vote with Edwards out of the race, and HRC would still walk away with a higher percentage of the delegates
Class dismissed.
He left because he can see the train a comin. He is dropping out because he will not get 15% in most of the states on the 5th. He will not be able to be king/queen maker. Most of the support will be going to HRC come the 5th, which was shown in Fla. As I spoke about in earlier post the absentee ballots and the last ballots in Fla went to HRC showed no bounce from the big endorsements or from the SC win from BO, the people have spoken. The MSM cannot pawn this on them. The debate is now 1 on 1. He's gotta talk to her now. He can't ignore her now.
J/ union wrote on January 30, 2008 10:15 AM:Annon at 9:58, that's the way it has always been. It's reasonably civil until the clintons' trolls show up. Then they start stirring up animosity and then they claim that obama supporters are the ones stirring it up.
You mean to say it is civil until someone offers a different point of view? How is calling the democrats in the south "southern white racists" civil? If you believe in your candidates message, you must forget the politics of the past and look to the future. You don't want to go back to the 90's, so lets not go back to the 60's either. The democratic party needs to stay relatively united, please. It is perfectly fine to support your candidate, but that word "racist" is thrown around alot...too much I am afraid.
fenner wrote on January 30, 2008 10:18 AM:Huge plus for Clinton. Why? Check out msnbc exit poll for Florida, almost 2 to 1 regardless of how somebody voted thought Clinton would be more effective uniting the country. Also, Clinton is the more progressive of the two and most voting for Edwards were doing so for this reason. Florida was a major victory, the exit polls for her are astounding. Makes you wonder why mysogyny is so much stronger in the media than in the populace. Oh, I know, the media believes they can hide behind the pc voting for a person of color thing and therefore release their inner woman hatred. Haven't seen such vicious attacks since Ferraro. Boy, there must be a lot of pent up frustration in the media. No powerful women in the US to take their anger out on. I hope the hell she wins. What a slap in the face to the elite Harvard crowd who need a telepromtor to tell you they're passionate!
Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 10:23 AM:"Huge plus for Clinton. Why? Check out msnbc exit poll for Florida"
Florida. Hee-hee
Craig Fourman wrote on January 30, 2008 10:25 AM:I am, have been and will be an Edwards supporter. It is on the merits of the issues, not personality, not electability, but the positions that appealed to me.
I do not know who I will support except to say I will support either of the Democrats over any of the Republicans as of now. But I also voted for McCain in the primary of 2000, and if Hillary wins and wants to rerun the 90's, and McCain is the alternative, I might do so again. It is a mistake for anyone to take my vote for granted.
As for now, Edwards will still be on the ballot in Ohio in March, and I plan to vote for him, as, when all is said and done, he still represents the best policy positions and that, for now, is where the battle lines are drawn for we democrats.
p_lukasiak wrote on January 30, 2008 10:27 AM:Explain to me how Edwards has so much more experience than Obama? You mean experience running for President?
well, I'd say that his experience during the general election campaign of 2004 is a definite plus in terms of him being ready for the Right Wing Noise Machine.
But the experience that I'm talking about is a full term in the Senate, where he learned how politics is played in DC....and more importantly, his career as a trial lawyer going up against massive corporations who will do anything to win, regardless of how unethical. To effect change, you have to understand the opposition to change. And John Edwards understands it.
nogo war wrote on January 30, 2008 10:27 AM:Actually the timing is good.
At the next debate and on the Stump both Clinton and Obama are going more LEFT to pick up Edwards' folks (like wife and myself)even though they had started already.
Edwards is going to force the media to come to NOLA. His speech will be heard. His word will resonate. Certain stands will be required of both remaining candidates.
Consider Florida as you would a time capsule from the summer of 2007.
J/union wrote on January 30, 2008 10:32 AM:Consider Florida as you would a time capsule from the summer of 2007.
Exit polls are not taken on early voting, like in the summer of 2007. Delegates or not, that was real people making a choice in an election process.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 10:37 AM:You get no argument from me on your points j/union.
MNPundit wrote on January 30, 2008 10:57 AM:Now let's see... will Edwards supports go home, or pick a new candidate?
Liam wrote on January 30, 2008 11:00 AM:He is doing the right thing. He was not going to win the nomination. Now let Hillary and Senator Obama fight it out, and may the best candidate win.
I am an Obama supporter, but if he loses to Hillary then she has earned the nomination and should be supported. Good luck to both of them, and to the Edwards family.
Greg DeLassus for President 2012 wrote on January 30, 2008 11:03 AM:Easy folks. He's just getting an early start on Edwards12.
Hah, not as early a start as I am getting!
Meanwhile, I am both surprised and disappointed to see Sen Edwards drop out now. If he were to hang on just a little while longer he might at least have won a single state (OK) on Feb 5. Meanwhile, he has added enormously to the coversation. I tip my hat to the man and I will keep his wife and family in my prayers (and my work; as a breast cancer researcher, I think often of the folks who pay my bills with the expectation of my lab benefitting them).
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 11:29 AM:I can't believe what i read from Obama supporters, " John Edwards must endorse Obama before feb 5th and campaign for him"
This is no sense ,I'm a huge Edwards supporter and his crowd always follow him for one reason, he's a fighter, he's been talking about corporate greed like nobody else, about poverty, unequal outcomes many issues than the other candidates wont even mention, what i always liked about him was the real approach to the problems, we gotta tackle down whats hurting us, beat it, defeat it and we all gotta sacrifice. All i hear from Obama is that he would be the messiah that would bring "change" to this mess, the mediator between the "us" the real workers and the Exxon board of directors, that he's gonna have a party where my sick brothers and William Maguire would be invited, give me a break!!! This guy is gutless man that cant even confront Hillary Clinton without pissing on his pants and having all of his friends coming in his defense because he cant even defend himself!
I will support HRC over Obama only cause i see in her more balls and backbone than what i see on Obama i dont even wanna go to the issues cause i don't even know the substance of his policies maybe he can erase the word change form his mouth a little and actually talk about substance in the incoming debate.
FlyOnTheWall: You got your math wrong; .55 * 5 is 2.75, not 2.55. This would put HRC in a tie with Edwards over the last delegate (0.75 vs. 2.75), so one would have to go to the third decimal place to get the delegate allocation. And while one can develop scenarios whereby all voters going to Edwards helps Obama, they must be in CDs in which (1) Edwards is drawing delegates and (2) HRC is getting more than 50% of the vote in the three-way race. Contrast that to situations in which Obama is helped: where enough Edwards supporters break for him to push him over the 50% mark. Given the very high negatives for HRC, I think this is completely feasible. Or to put it in terms of my precinct (where I am a Precinct Captain for Obama): my Edwards supporters (and I have plenty) are virtually all anti-HRC. In my precinct, Edwards dropping out is fantastic news for Obama, endorsement or no...
colonpowwow wrote on January 30, 2008 11:32 AM:Yes, Michael A.:
There's nothing like the uncivil, full of animosity, "race-baiting Clinton trolls" as Michael A. describes us in his last post (and in such a civilzed manner), to take any discussions here right into the gutter!
We Hillbots do feel the love for the Clintons that you all have expressed here, especially over the last few months, but I guess we're just unable to respond in kind in the manner that you exemplify so well. Sorry.
LOL
Chris wrote on January 30, 2008 11:34 AM:FlyOnTheWall, great math! But you must realize that there are also districts with even-numbers of delegates, too, right? To use your numbers (51% HRC, 34% Obama, 15% Edwards) in a district with 4 delegates, the split goes 2-1-1. With Edwards dropping out and his vote splitting right down the middle, it splits 2-2! Delegate gained for Obama.
Funny how percentages work, huh?
another reader wrote on January 30, 2008 11:34 AM:Why do people discount Hillary's experience as First Lady? She was sold at the time as a "co-president" and while she wasn't exactly that, she definitely had a big influence on many issues.
To get a sense of that, read this interview with George Stephanopolous:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/stephanopoulos.html
I understand this could play into the dynasty arguement, the Clinton restoration arguement, and I think that is fair game. But please, don't inaccurately state that she has no experience as First Lady or the equivalent of Chelsea's.
zonk wrote on January 30, 2008 11:42 AM:another reader wrote on January 30, 2008 11:34 AM:Why do people discount Hillary's experience as First Lady? She was sold at the time as a "co-president" and while she wasn't exactly that, she definitely had a big influence on many issues.
To get a sense of that, read this interview with George Stephanopolous:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/stephanopoulos.html
I understand this could play into the dynasty arguement, the Clinton restoration arguement, and I think that is fair game. But please, don't inaccurately state that she has no experience as First Lady or the equivalent of Chelsea's.
Ha!
So we're now allowed to cite Stephanoplous? I was under the impression that citing Stephanopolous fell under the "Don't use right wing talking points" area.... because there are a LOT of ugly things George wrote about the Clinton administration.
...or - are we only allowed to cite Stephanopolous in certain instances?
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 30, 2008 11:45 AM:Chris:
The vast majority of Feb. 5 CDs are odd-numbered districts. Go look it up.
PrecinctCaptain:
Sure, where enough Edwards supporters break for Obama to push him over 50%, this will help him. But even the Gallup poll, the gold-standard for national tracking, which has shown a dramatic tightening of the race in the past week, still has Hillary with a 9-point lead nationally. There are very, very few states in which this is likely to thrust Obama into an outright lead. More common are the states where Obama's trailing roughly 45-30 (NJ, NY, CA, MO, etc.)
Now those are statewide tallies, and the demographics play differently on the ground. But the overwhelming truth about Obama is that his very substantial support tends to be tightly clustered. He wins plurality-black districts. He wins affluent and liberal districts. And he wins these by substantial margins. But in New York, for example, he's trailing badly upstate. In California, he does fairly well in LA and the Bay Area, and comparatively poorly elsewhere. Edwards and HRC, by contrast, have run well in the same sorts of areas - among working-class whites.
So you've got to ask yourself - even if Edwards voters break overwhelmingly for Obama, will they be enough to help him win outright in heavily white, working class CDs? I hate to say the answer is, probably not. And if he can't win the majority in those CDs, then Edwards' withdrawal will hurt him. Simple as that.
I hate posting on here. The commenters on all sides can be so hateful and ugly.
The Stephanoplous/Clinton relationship is more complicated than we could know, so take everything with a grain of salt of course. But why would he lie about her influence/experience in the White House? I don't know. Believe what you want. There's far more evidence than this interview alone. If you don't want to believe it because you hate her so much then remain ignorant.
zonk wrote on January 30, 2008 11:49 AM:Sigh...
I know NV is hardly a microcosm of the nation -- but why is everyone (or at least, certain segments) so willfully ignoring the fact that Obama WON rural Nevada?
It's actually why he won more delegates out of NV than Clinton, despite getting nudged in the popular vote.
I mean - there's counter-evidence, too -- but there's plenty of evidence that Obama runs quite strong in rural America.
zonk wrote on January 30, 2008 11:54 AM:another reader wrote on January 30, 2008 11:49 AM:
Hey - I'm just saying...
A few weeks back, I was chiming in with some choice comments from George Stephanopolous -- and I got absolutely CRUCIFIED for posting them. I was excoriated for using "right wing talking points" and "citing that traitor".
You cannot have it both ways - you cannot use George when it suits you, but then call him persona non grata when it doesn't. I'm using the "royal you" here -- not saying you were one of the posters that jumped all over me -- but there were plenty.
So you know - I'll just ask the question in the simplest possible manner:
Is is it acceptable to cite something George Stephanopolous has written or said?
The answer cannot be "sometimes" -- it's gotta be yes or no.
another reader wrote on January 30, 2008 11:59 AM:Like I said, cite him all you want. Why not? I think it's fair. Just remember that the relationship is very complicated, so I don't think everything can be taken quite at face value. Both he and the Clintons have reputations to protect.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 30, 2008 12:03 PM:Zonk:
Obama has had tremendous rural appeal in the midwest and west, but it's been sharply limited in the south.
But be cautious about drawing inferences from Nevada. That state's system required 10 rural voters to elect each state delegate, and 40 Las Vegas voters to do the same. Obama was even in the delegate count because rural voters had up to four times as much power as urban ones. In a primary state, where rural votes are given a much more modest bonus, he would have lost the delegate battle by a decent margin.
That's why people aren't paying too much attention to rural voters - there aren't that many of them, and they control comparatively few delegates. They mattered in Iowa and Nevada, only because the caucuses were rigged to inflate their importance. When I write of poor white voters, I mostly mean those in mid-size cities with decaying economies. That's the crowd Edwards was directly speaking to - those left behind in our current economy. And it's a demographicaly significant bunch, with much more clout than rural areas. Obama can win rural areas across the country and lose the delegate battle.
so i take it laura bush is now qualified to run for Senate in, say, GA, and then for pres in 2012 or 2016 bc of all her "experience"?
i think the kennedy's (sen. and caroline) put to rest the doubts some voters may have had about obama.
and hillary getting over 50% of the vote? where has she done that (pls dont say FL..lol)
Hillary is so divisive that if people, err, women, weren't with her initially, they won't be now. Judging by the latest polls, many have been juning ship.
What prominent statewide or federally elected women are on hillary's side?
after the kennedy endorsement, obama's are growing rapidly...
zonk:
As a Clinton supporter I say certainly post anything GS says and reports about Hillary, and certainly his interviews of her - for better or for worse.
After all, she's never run from her record, nor does she ever paint herself as saintly and somehow above all that messy political stuff.
Goldspinner wrote on January 30, 2008 12:18 PM:My suspicions are that Edwards made his decision largely based on Elizabeth's current health situation. She looked mighty thin when she returned home this week.
colonpowwow wrote on January 30, 2008 12:21 PM:Sorry to actually get on topic for a moment here, but although I'd vote for the smarmy phony if he'd have won the election, I'm happy he's through.
Maybe he had to take his job back with Fortress Investments (Big Corporation - BOO!) in order to pay their mounting medical bills.
Gosh, if so, I'll bet he regrets that day (when he was a Senator actually sending a message to Washington), that he voted against the Wellstone Amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy Act. You know that amendment that every Republican was also against and that every progressive Democrat (like Hillary) supported that would have allowed one to declare bankruptcy if one went belly-up due to medical bills (like their spouse got an incurable cancer or something).
Well that's no longer an option for poor and middle class Americans anymore. Like he is, right?
Farewell, Cheneyslayer!
Liam wrote on January 30, 2008 12:21 PM:Take a deep breath everyone. We are down to two candidates, and one of them is going to have to defeat a Republican to avoid having the Supreme Court stacked with Far Right Justices.
Time to calm the waters, and to heal and reconcile our Democratic family, before we take on the real enemies of progressive freedom loving ideals.
I am an Obama backer, but I will support Hillary, should she win the nomination. Let us not get so alienated within our two camps that we lose sight of the ultimate prize; The Supreme Court.
I am just going to wait and see what Super Tuesday brings about. One week from today, we should have a much clearer picture of which of the two candidates is going to be the nominee.
Let our two remaining candidates duke it out for the next week, and may the best candidate win.
It is time to cease fighting the good family fight, and unite to face the ultimate foe.
Go Hillary or Obama.
colonpowwow wrote on January 30, 2008 12:45 PM:I'll just briefly explain why I feel so nasty about Edwards - in case anyone gives a rat's ass.
IMO - he's the guy who pooped in the pool and turned the Democratic campaign ugly for a bit, by implying that Hillary Clinton was somehow "corrupt" (although he was careful to parse it well) - because she took campaign contributions from lobbyists. Boy, did that ever pour gasoline on the irrational Hillary-hate fires that burn through the lefty blogs!
Of course, schoolteachers and untions lobby, and lobbyists have 1st Amendment rights even though they have a different job than him, and even though Edwards cheerfully accepted money from big corporations (BOO!) who HIRE these lobbyists - anyway, you get the picture.
Obama, to his credit at the time, said that he would have a problem with making that distinction and turning it into some dirty campaign issue loaded with a charged innuendo.
Edwards - no problem for him.
Charlie wrote on January 30, 2008 1:08 PM:I don't see how Edwards dropping out helps Hillary and hurts Obama either. I always theorized that the people that liked the change message were split between Obama and Edwards. So it would seem that most all of those change-lover would opt for the next most change-oriented candidate...Obama.
I also believe that Edwards will endorse Obama. At least early on, they seemed to try not to attack each other. Later on, when they did start to confront one another, they never hit hard, almost like they were debating each other because they needed to. And it's obvious from watching the debates that Edwards and Obama are friends, they joke around, pat each other on the back,etc. No one does that with Billary. I think Obama will end up with the endorsement and the delegates and will be strong enough to win the nomination, if not straight up, then in the convention at least.
I do think that he should have hung in there til after super tuesday, that way he'd have more delegates to devote to the candidate he eventually chooses to endorse. I am interested also, though, to see how the two frontrunners will fair campaigning against each other without Edwards in the picture.
Charlie wrote on January 30, 2008 1:10 PM:And I wish people would quit talking about the racists' influence in the breadbasket and bible-belt states. Yeah, there are racists out there, and yeah in the beginning everyone said that America wasn't ready for a black president, but Obama is winning states and is a strong second in the states he's lost. And polls report that more than 70% of Americans polled have said that they now feel that they, and America, are indeed ready for a black candidate. America is not as racist as Americans think...the proof is in the pudding!
ChrisO wrote on January 30, 2008 1:16 PM:Anonymous (if that is your real name:) You said "It's interesting how the Hillary supporters like ChrisO start making stuff up about what Obama supporters (at least in this thread) have been saying. It was reasonably civil until the Hillarybot showed up. What a suprise!"
Sorry, I didn't realize that this thread was the only place this topic was being discussed. I could have sworn I saw it on one or two other blogs today. Look at any online discussion of this story and you'll see tons of Obama supporters talking about how Edwards' support will automatically go to Obama. And it's been stated on this thread, as well.
And my post was entirely civil. Just because I made a point you disagree with doesn't make me a "Hillarybot" I think you'll find that your calls for civility go a lot farther if you refrain from calling peole names.
ChrisO wrote on January 30, 2008 1:27 PM:Charlie said: "I always theorized that the people that liked the change message were split between Obama and Edwards. So it would seem that most all of those change-lover would opt for the next most change-oriented candidate...Obama."
You may be right. But my contention is with the fact that posts like these often begin with statements about what Edwards voters think, based on nothing more than "I've always theorized..." I'm not insulting you, but I don't see how anyone's theory is worth anything, especially when we have actual election data and exit polls.
As a Boston Globe columnist pointed out the other day, a lot of Obama supporters are in a comfortable enough position that they can focus on things like "changing the tone," while working class voters are focused on things like "Where's my health care." I believe most polls have shown that Clinton and Edwards enjoy more working class support than Obama.
Chris wrote on January 30, 2008 1:51 PM:FlyOnTheWall, I did look it up, and you're wrong. TheGreenPapers.com lists the delegates per CD for each state. In the Feb. 5 contests, there are more even-numbered districts than odds: 135 to 118.
AuntBec wrote on January 30, 2008 2:35 PM:Indeed we will become the butt of all the "lefty" jokes if we continue, as party faithfuls, to belittle and knock the Democrat candidates.
It is apparent we all have our opinions and outrages, but we cannot forget, this IS about US as the voting public, not about THEM - yet.
I teach Advanced Placement Government and Politics in the reddest state in the union - Idaho. My students are bright, interested, and very conservative by nature. Many of them are Mormons and come from staunch Republican families. Of the 60 students in the course 45 are planning to attend the Democratic caucus on super Tues. to caucus for Obama. Were Obama to become the nominee, I suspect some of these students might actually become Democrats. But since that is unlikely, I must admit to some disappointment. But Obama has worked his magic here, and the greatest thing he has done is he has made being a Democrat respectable to these young conservatives. They differ with Obama on many critical issues, but they trust him and admire his chararacter. And while Idaho will never be even a purple state, most of my students will never live in Idaho after college. They will most likely become Reps., but they will also remember that their introduction into politics occured because of a Democrat they so admired. This is good for the party. I wish the older generation could see what I am seeing and the possibilities we have now to grow this party. But alas, we are Democrats, and we never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
