What's Next: The Battle For Edwards Delegates And Supporters
Now that Edwards has dropped, one of the first thing the Hillary and Obama campaigns will be doing is trying to win over Edwards' delegates. According to one tally, Edwards has a total of 62 -- 26 pledged delegates, and 36 superdelegates.
Meanwhile, other Edwards supporters that will be coveted by the other campaigns: Unions such as the steelworkers and the carpenters' union, and surrogates such as liberal Rep. David Obey.
As for voters themselves, commentators are split between thinking that Edwards' working-class supporters will gravitate towards Hillary and thinking that Edwards' backers are basically un-Hillary "change" voters who will naturally drift towards Obama.
The most recent national number on this that I can find on this question is this Los Angeles Times poll from late January:
"Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina drew the support of 11% of Democratic respondents. When asked for whom they would vote if their first choice dropped out, slightly more Edwards voters leaned toward Clinton than toward Obama, the poll found."
Comments (88)
marcus wrote on January 30, 2008 10:37 AM:How anyone could go from Edwards to Clinton is beyond me...that is going from wanting someone who says they support aggressively fighting for change, to someone who is at best wanting to take us back to the 90s, and believes there is nothing from with lobbyist influence. It has to be people who are just too uninformed to know what the candidates are actually about, and they are just running off name recognition. That and a handful of people who will only vote for white candidates (this means you Oklahoma). It is just stupid. Hopefully if Edwards tells his supporters that they should support Obama they will.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 10:37 AM:When I first saw this news this morning, a chill ran up my spine. This is incredibly bad news for Obama, because in my heart of hearts, I think JRE split CLINTON's votes, not OBAMAs.
However, just maybe, the support of Ted Kennedy is going to come through here.
Just maybe, those steelworkers and carpenters will immediately turn around and endorse the wine and cheese candidate.
Just maybe, this can turn into a net positive, by adding major unions to Obama's coalition.
And, just maybe, JRE may turn around and endorse Obama. Time is ticking, in that regard.....
Again, this development is trending negative for Obama, but I can find and think of scenarios where he can take advantage of this. The Clintons are still generally reactive, and a JRE endorsement of her would seem, well, hypocritical in the least....
We shall see.....
DRinOH wrote on January 30, 2008 10:39 AM:Edwards already made his endorsement in N.H.: "There are two candidates of change in this race, and one of status quo. And every time he or I speaks out for change, the forces of status quo will speak out against us."
grantv wrote on January 30, 2008 10:40 AM:I hate to point out the obvious, but McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, so um, if we like, want any chance whatsoever of winning, we kinda needs to hurry up and kick Hillary to the curb. Just putting that out there...because somehow electability hasn't been an issue at all in this entire election, past BS arguments about "vetting"
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 10:40 AM:I believe Edwards supporters will go for Hillary, the same with those who endorse edwards...because hillary and edwards have alot of the same views own things but just a different way of doing them.
Also in the last debate Obama and Edwards didn't seem to see eye to eye and Hillary and Edwards had a closed meeting aftwards.
I believe Hillary winning by 17 points in Florida were no one campaigned and democrates came out in large numbers and she won over lots of people even at the last minute without campaigning:) will help her as she heads into super tuesday.
Don't look for edwards to back obama after John Kerry Backed Obama, Edwards still ain't got over that.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 10:41 AM:DROH-
Maybe. Just maybe.......
But he has to say something before 2/5, and preferably before 2/3. Otherwise, no endorsement = tacit endorsement of HRC, right?
Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 10:42 AM:First, Obama gets routed in Florida overnight, now Edwards drops out. Maybe Florida isn't so inconsequential after all?
I see Edwards going to either Clinton or Obama without much compromise for his new found, even if inauthentic populism. Clinton and Obama both represent aspects of this enough to satisfy Edwards. The real question will be what they offer him? Cabinet position, VP, or some other role? I see the supreme court as too much of a stretch, but there are a lot of options and time is short to decide.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 30, 2008 10:45 AM:The delegate picture is slightly more complicated. The superdelegates are up for grabs, but it's instructive that in recent days, two had already switched to back Obama. The pledged delegates who have already been elected (that is, those from NH and SC) now go to the convention as uncommitted. Iowa is a separate story. It won't choose its delegates until the 3/15 county convention and the state convention later in April. Those elected at the precinct level to support Edwards are welcome to do whatever they want. For that matter, so are the rest of the delegates. In Iowa, I suspect, we'll just have to wait and see.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 10:46 AM:Angry Vet, glad to see some optomism coming back. You had me worried there for a moment.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 30, 2008 10:47 AM:Those who want "change" as a concept and particularly those who support the working class and union workers as a cause will probably go to Obama.
However, to date Clinton has gotten the votes of those who are actually working class and union members.
The Obama crusaders despite the Media's best efforts are likely to be disappointed.
phil james wrote on January 30, 2008 10:49 AM:DRinOH said it best. Edwards needs to support Obama if he wants to retain credibility on his platform of change. Hillary probably tried to bribe him to come over to the dark side with some cabinet post or such in their closed meeting but he told her where to stuff it. If he is truly anti-poverty and anti-racist which is what his NOLA work shows then he must support Obama.
Mark wrote on January 30, 2008 10:50 AM:"Don't look for edwards to back obama after John Kerry Backed Obama, Edwards still ain't got over that."
..why would Edwards punish Obama for something kerry did? You have to learn how to mask your wishful thinking a little bit better.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 30, 2008 10:51 AM:The touching belief of Obama supporters that Obama is for "change" in anything other than rhetoric continues to amuse me. If anything he's overall slightly to the right of Clinton on domestic issues, though I have slightly more (not much though) confidence in his foreign policy views than the zero I have in hers. Look, I'm certainly open to persuasion that he's the stronger GE candidate- though I think that case is far from proven- but to pretend this is a night-and-day choice is ludicrous. People who pay so little attention that they can believe that, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.
BionicWoman wrote on January 30, 2008 10:55 AM:In South Carolina, 50% - which represented the black vote - went to Obama. The while vote was split between Edwards and Hillary. She took the women, he took the men. So it is likely that this will about what while men will do. The upper class will likely go to Obama while the working class will likely go to Hillary. Remember she has Bill behind her and a lot of men find that comforting.
wwjb wrote on January 30, 2008 10:57 AM:Matthew, Obama wasn't "routed" in Florida, he only lost by 17%, which is pretty amazing considering he wasn't able to campaign there, while Hillary/Bill were the default candidates there, having all the advantage in the world. Not to mention, according to The Nation, Hillary went to Florida to campaign before the primary, and Bill has apparently spent a lot of low-profile time there:
She dispatched campaigner-in-chief Bill Clinton to the state for weeks of just-below-the-radar campaigning. On Sunday, she flew to Florida, violating the pledge all the major Democratic contenders has made to avoid campaigning in the state that scheduled its primary earlier than was allowed by the Democratic National Convention.
No, the fact that Obama got that close (a lot closer than Hillary got to Obama in a state where her and Bill had been campaigning from the beginning) is pretty significant, not to mention the pro-Obama trends with voters deciding in the last few days. So no, Obama didn't get routed by anything, and the momentum is still all his, the Florida vote was meaningless. And if Florida did mean something, Edwards would have stayed in because he did pretty well there if you look at the details.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 10:57 AM:MA,
Maybe..... This announcement took me seriously off guard. I hope the campaign was a bit more forward looking than I was. And, I think, I see the strategy, and possibly, a bit of coordination between the two.
For instance:
Why would JRE wait until today to announce he's leaving the race? SC was much more personal to him as far as the campaign was concerned. The predictable (and un-coordinated) move would've been to drop Sunday, or Monday.
However, BO had the Kennedy op-ed and the fruits of the SC victory. He had the endorsement on Monday, which ended up overshadowing the SOTU. Tuesday was a bit of a loser for him, as any poll could show. So, instead of worrying about it, he jettisons some baggage (Rezko donations) right about when Florida went for HRC. Barely even noticed in the media.
Now, Wednesday, JRE advisors announce at around 9am EST (start of the news cycle, though missing the morning shows) that JRE is out of the race.
There is a reason for all of this. I sense coordination going on, and, really, do you actually think at this point Joe Trippi is able to coordinate anything with someone like Mark Penn?
Yeah, the optimism is back in that regard. I think Obama and aides probably knew JRE would be out after SC and tried to delay the announcement until today. He got that. It suggest to me we may actually see a JRE endorsement by the end of the week....
Of course, I think this still hurts BO electorally. FlyOnTheWall has a really clear analysis in that regard that I think is correct.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 11:00 AM:Just for the record,
I am not taking any of the obviously faulty reasoning as bait by certain parties above. I suggest everyone else should do the same.
You recognize bait by the standard talking points, failure to cite asserted "facts", and overall snarkiness.
I plea for everyone to keep this discourse civil.
lifelongdem wrote on January 30, 2008 11:03 AM:A minor correction on the delegate count question
Edwards actually doesn't "have" 26 pledged delegates -- he did pick up 4 delegates in NH and 8 in SC -- because he won them in primaries, they remain his.
But in Iowa, where his caucus showing would have entitled him to 14 delegates, the delegates haven't been elected yet. Instead, precinct level delegates were elected who will no elect delegates to county and congressional district caucuses.
Edwards' precinct delegates are now free to switch to whatever candidate the choose (As are the smaller numbers of delegates pledged to Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich). Where those precinct delegates transfer their loyalty will determine the final breakdown of the Iowa delegation -- I'd expect that both Obama and Clinton will increase their Iowa delegate counts because of this.
The superdelegates will be the real prize here - they are free to do whatever they want, and many of them are influential leaders in the party and their states. Obama and Clinton will both be working hard to bring them over.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 11:07 AM:Angry vet, that's a very good analysis on the media angle. Maybe obama is starting to finally play the media like the clintons are. I feel better already, even though edwards dropping out probably will make it harder on obama to prevail.
Pearl White wrote on January 30, 2008 11:08 AM:I have always supported the Clintons, but this win at any cost mentality has turned me off. I find her pledging not to campaign in Florida, then flying in a few times for quasi-campaign events then treating the "victory" as the same as all the others quite sleazy. What does "campaign" mean, right?
Sort of reminiscent of some of Bill's old parsing of verbiage. Recall: What is the true meaning of "sexual relations"? Fellatio doesn't count, right. How about "is"? ("Is" she giving me fellatio now?). Or, when you say "never breaking the drug laws of my country" ... if you smoke weed in England -- and don't inhale -- that shouldn't count, right?
Some things never change....
dcshungu wrote on January 30, 2008 11:10 AM:LOL. Now we get to find out what that mysterious post-debate tete-a-tete between Hillary and Edwards was all about...
wwjb wrote on January 30, 2008 11:12 AM:I think Obama will reap the majority of the Edwards superdelegates, they obviously had no problem not supporting Hillary, and the movement has definitely been toward people endorsing Obama. I think some of Hillary's people wish they hadn't committed to her so soon after seeing her and Bill's behavior and lies over the campaign, not to mention Obama's appeal. There is a rejection of the Clintons coming to the surface of the party, and I think that Edwards' superdelegates will gladly switch over the Obama.
Linda Tinjum wrote on January 30, 2008 11:15 AM:It's my understanding that in SC, voters were asked who their 2nd choice was, and among Edwards' voters, almost all white, it was Obama 68% and Clinton 32%. So much for the white voters in the South, particularly white men, won't vote for Obama. And it's clearly been demonstrated that white men and women will vote for Obama in other parts of the country. People like Pat Buchanan and Craig Crawford and Jeff Toobin have been using SC to try to spin that Obama needs to do better among white voters, as if getting 24% of the white vote in SC was somehow doing worse than expected rather than better than expected among white voters in SC. Also, I believe it was Jeff Toobin on CNN who basically used the fact that Obama "only" got 38% of the white vote in Iowa and "only" 33% of the white vote in NH as a sign of Obama doing badly among white voters even in the North. I don't remember anyone saying that John Kerry had to worry about white voters because he got "only" 1/3 of the white vote in Iowa and NH 4 years ago. It seems to me that if Obama is getting the same percent of the white vote that Kerry got in Iowa and NH that that's a good thing.
TheraP wrote on January 30, 2008 11:15 AM:
Daniel Greenbaum said it. I agree.
I believe Edwards supporters will go for Hillary, the same with those who endorse edwards...because hillary and edwards have alot of the same views own things but just a different way of doing them.
I find this plausible; indeed, I was never quite clear why Clinton's supporters were backing Clinton, given that all of Clinton's ideas were just Edwards' ideas repackaged as her own.
That said, if Obama wants to snatch up some of those union endorsements, his anti-NAFTA piece from yesterday was precisely the right way to go about it. If he is smart, he will begin playing up that line right away. The risk in that approach, of course, is that he might alienate some of the (so-called) wine-and-brie element, but I think that most of his present supporters are so alienated by Clinton at this point that this is only a minor worry (for what little my arm-chair campaign-strategist musings are worth).
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 11:17 AM:I am not for civil discourse. There is something cathartic about a bloodbath.
dcshungu wrote on January 30, 2008 11:20 AM:"Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina drew the support of 11% of Democratic respondents. When asked for whom they would vote if their first choice dropped out, slightly more Edwards voters leaned toward Clinton than toward Obama, the poll found." -- LAT Poll
Edwards exit will clarify the picture dramatically. We will no longer need to speculate about who would siphon off his supporters. We'll know soon enough on Feb 5, but (speculating still and in line with the LAT poll) I think that this would help Hillary in Dixie, where Edwards' support was in the 20s, and not have much effect in other regions, where he has been getting just 10-15% of the vote. Insofar as his supporters were overwhelmingly working-class whites, Hillary might benefit or if there is a white "backlash" because of Obama's monolithic support among blacks...
We'll know soon enough.
Edwards for AG!
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 11:26 AM:Hi dc, once again by and large I agree with you. By the way, do you know of any recent polling or links? I would think there would be a boatload of polls out as super tuesday is only 6 days away. Where are they?
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 11:27 AM:Greg D-
Well, as a pretty much standard "wine and brie" guy, here's my credentials and my opinion on how they'll react to "fair trade anti-NAFTA."
Creds: WIne fanatic, and also a cheese fanatic, too, though I tend to avoid the bleus. Just a preference, because they smell like old wounds, which isn't good for my mentality (see my namesake, above). Liberal, middle-class, in graduate school. White, male, under 30.
Sounds like the Obama demo, right?
Anyway, well, "fair traders" have a point. What has open and free trade gotten us at this point? A huge current account deficit, a dropping currency (so us wine and cheese people have trouble buying our favorite wines and cheeses --> all imported), and dangerous toys for our three year olds.
Nope, seems to play right to his base, actually.
The assumptions of free trade, I think, have been throughly discredited by what has happened the past eight years. Same with the laissez faire free markets. Hey, don't get me wrong, capitalism is, I think, the right way to go. But absolute freedom creates room for large booms and large busts, and also makes room for corruption.
Yep, I think Obama's wine and cheese people will be just fine accepting fellow travelers into the fold. You see, alot of our parents and families are those that are union families, voting for JRE.
At least in my snapshot, it all makes sense.
Sandi wrote on January 30, 2008 11:28 AM:If you really read everything that was said by both campaigns you will see that nobody is lying. Everyone reads into everything what they want to read. Hillary DID NOT CAMPAIGN IN FLORIDA. IT IS DOCUMENTED. EVEN BARACK OBAMA SAID NONE OF THEM CAMPAIGNED. I DON'T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE ARE GETTING THAT. SHE WON BY NAME RECOGNITION, WHICH ON FEB. 5TH WILL BE IMPORTANT UNLESS THERE ARE 22 BARACK OBAMA'S AND HILLARY CLINTONS. THERE WAS A POLL WHICH I DON'T REALLY LISTEN TO, THAT 4 OF 10 EDWARDS SUPPORTERS PICKED HILLARY 2ND AND 2.5 OUT OF 10 PICKED OBAMA. I THINK THE BEST WAY FOR ALL OF US TO HANDLE THIS IS WATCH ON FEB. 5TH. OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN SAID NASTY STUFF ABOUT THE CLINTON'S TOO, JUST SEEMS THAT THE PRESS WANT TO AGAIN DERAIL THE CLINTON'S. JUST REMEMBER, EVEN DURING THE IMPEACHMENT AND ALL THE BAD PRESS AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED, BILL CLINTON WON A SECOND TERM. JUST KEEP HOUNDING THE CLINTONS...THAT ALONE WILL MAKE PEOPLE LIKE ME WANT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 11:32 AM:DCS-
Yep. One on one, Man v. Woman.
Fight of the Century on 2/5.
HRC has a pretty tough lead going into it. I don't know if BHO has enough momentum to outduel HRC...... A JRE, BR, or AG endorsement all help, but, would even THAT be enough to beat the Clinton juggernaut?
Boy, wouldn't a BO win in NH have been nice, at this point?
Mary C. wrote on January 30, 2008 11:33 AM:I am so annoyed as I already voted absentee ballot in CA for Edwards. I would have switched to Obama had I waited. Hillary, for whatever reason, bores me to death and is too status quo. And yes, I am a woman who loved her for her health care stance years ago. She just doesn't seem like the passion is there anymore. Finally, I can NEVER forgive her for her war support. That is the biggest negative in my mind regarding her bid.
Rod wrote on January 30, 2008 11:33 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.
When it all comes right down to it, who really deserves the nomination?
WCG wrote on January 30, 2008 11:37 AM:I certainly hope Edwards supporters move to Barack Obama! With McCain as the Republican nominee, Clinton is toast. She doesn't offer anything, to most voters, that McCain doesn't trump. I think it would be funny, if it weren't so sad, that so many Democrats are against Obama because he's actually inspiring! No, we can't have a good campaigner as our nominee, can we? We can't have someone who gives us hope, who makes us wildly enthusiastic, because, you know... Reagan was popular, too! Heh, heh. No, we want a policy wonk, perhaps a wooden campaigner like the last two Democratic nominees. Or a woman who is widely considered to be the devil herself by conservatives (not a bad thing, in itself), whose nomination would instantly rejuvenate the Republican Party, and cause all those right-wingers who hate McCain to make sure to get out and vote, anyway. Even if Clinton squeezed out a win, it would be a disaster for other Democratic politicians. This election is the Democrats' to lose, not the Republicans' to win. Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of Democrats are prepared to do just that. I just hope Obama can keep the momentum going to prevent that from occurring.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 11:39 AM:Yep, I think Obama's wine and cheese people will be just fine accepting fellow travelers into the fold. You see, alot of our parents and families are those that are union families, voting for JRE.
Don't I know it. I would fall into that white, 30-something, graduate-level education demographic that I am told is going for Obama, but I come from a long line of union electricians (the IBEW has not endorsed anyone so far). I never liked NAFTA or its sequelæ and I still do not. My principle point, however, was simply that Clinton's weakness with unions is her association (fair or otherwise) with Bill Clinton's aggressive NAFTA boosterism, and if Obama wants to pick up those now-up-for-grabs union endorsements, his best approach would be to bring up Clinton's ties to NAFTA.
GordonsGirl wrote on January 30, 2008 11:40 AM:Let's not forget this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_robocalls_hit_Edwards.html
Just last Friday, the Clinton campaign hit the Edwards campaign via robocalls. At the time, I felt that ruled out any hope of her ever getting Edwards delegates. After the SC results came in, Trippi stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Obama's rep (Joe Erwin) against Clinton's rep, asking her to denounce the robocalls. Clinton rep's response: "Politics is tough." Despicable... More proof that the Clintons will even kick a guy who is down in order to get what they want.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 11:41 AM:With McCain as the Republican nominee, Clinton is toast.
I cavil at the term "toast," but I agree with the basic sentiment. Clinton is the weaker candidate to face McCain. I noticed that the TPM main page was carrying a story about Obama pressing this point. I hope that he continues to do so, as this is one of his strongest arguments to close the gap between now and Feb 5.
Doctor Jay wrote on January 30, 2008 11:44 AM:I'm an Edwards backer, and I'm going to vote for Hillary next Tuesday. And it's not because I'm ignorant, or blue-collar.
I like Obama, but I fear that he will be another Jimmy Carter. Carter, in my view, is a wonderful man, but not an especially good president. Obama has not shown what I would call grace under pressure, mostly he just avoids pressure. He's the kind of guy who says "why don't we all play nice"
As much as I'd like that, it's something we don't control. The other side gets to decide to play nice or not, and they will definitely be not nice if it gives them an advantage. So far, Obama hasn't shown me that he can deal with that sort of crap effectively.
Hillary and Bill have been taking crap tossed at them by Republicans and stuffing it back down their throats for 20 years now.
I fear Obama will be a four-years and out president. Is he going to be strong enough, smart enough, and savvy enough to escape Republican framing of "cut and run" with a new Iraq policy? Or to get us to universal health care over the cries of "socialism"? Do you think he can keep Pakistan in line by asking them to play nice?
Hope is a very good thing. But I think you need both Hope and strength.
One last note: Yes, Hillary is the target of some right-wing nutjobs. I refused to be intimidated by them. Not gonna happen.
Brett wrote on January 30, 2008 11:45 AM:I dont see how Edwards could possibly endorse Hillary. In every one of his stump speeches he talks about how dispicable it is that the candidate with the most money from lobbyist, corporations, and PACs is not a Republican for once, but a Democrat (Hillary). If he doesnt want to seem hypocritical in his condemnation of such practices, he shouldnt endorse Clinton.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 11:50 AM:My feeling is that if Edwards voters decide to vote for either Clinton or Obama, the votes for each will improve somewhat proportionally with a slight edge to Clinton. I say this from viewing simple demographics of the Florida exit polls.
Edwards received very few black voters and his smallest share of the age groups was in the youngest bracket. The lions share of Edwards voters are white and middle aged and Clinton has a modest advantage in this demographic.
Mr. Purple wrote on January 30, 2008 11:58 AM:I don't think anyone will know the answer to this question until next Tuesday... I've been trying to listen to what my gut tells me and I come up with nothing.
Mr. Purple
SoCali wrote on January 30, 2008 11:58 AM:My guess is the fix is in... maybe Edwards doesn't endorse but his votes tip toward HRC. Richardson endorses HRC to solidify the Hispanic vote. Race over.
Richardson for SoS and Edwards AG?
I was just listening to On Point on NPR- they had Republican strategists on about McCain's win. It should be required listening for all Dems. It was disheartening to hear caller after caller, Democrat, Republican and Indpendent alike saying that if Hillary is the nominee, they will vote McCain. When will the left realize that she is our losing candidate? If what people love about McCain is the sense that he is authentic and a straight talker (which I actually heartily disagree with), how can Clinton, with her reputation of calcuation and triangulation ever hope to beat McCain. I really think Obama is the best chance now that McCain is the likely nominee. I think either Obama or Clinton could beat Romney or Huckabee- but McCain- it will be tough for either and I think impossible for Hillary. Whether it is fair or not, the media do not like her, Republicans hate her and Independets will not go to her over McCain. We need to start thinking strategically- even those who support Hillary must recognize these trends and decide that we are better off with ANY dem than any republican....
Rod wrote on January 30, 2008 12:01 PM: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.
I will not be changing my vote on Super Tuesday as neither Clinton or Obama have proven themselves worthy of a Democratic vote.
Clinton's fear-mongering and overt flirtation with playing the race card makes her a non-choice.
Obama's repeated proclaimations of refusal to stand up for our Constitutional Rights when his voice would have mattered is beyond the pale.
Gravel is a better choice than either of them.
That is the actual stance of an Edward's supporter. The worst part of all this is that the Clintonians and the Obamaites above lack the ability to understand this point of view.
Of course, I will vote for the DEM nominee in National election BUT I choose neither of the remaining Republican-lites during the Primary.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 12:06 PM:Doctor Jay,
I agree with most of your words but I don't think I can any longer characterize Obama as playing particularly nice. A poster referred to Obama's style as very passive aggressive. I watched the SC debate twice (prior to reading that poster's words) and the second time around I became far more aware of how Obama would take a jab at Clinton each time he answered a question.
Her style appears divisive to many and I agree that some of the attacks employed
by the Clinton campaign during SC were artless and backfired against them. But, the more I see of Obama, the more I notice that his style is quite often arrogant and petty.
I was going to cast my vote for Edwards based on his rhetoric depicting the need for fundamental change. But all along I had a nagging feeling he staked out the only position that was left to him after HRC and Obama claimed the middle. In other words, if you looked at Edwards record, he was pretty much a bland southern politician that morphed into Mr. anti-establishment. It was tough to believe-- but many of us wanted to believe.
Then this deal just before the Super Tuesday primaries after only (3) real primaries in very esoteric states, after promising to "stay in it to the end," it confirms what we all had lingering doubts about. Edwards is a pretty face and very ambitious.
Rod wrote on January 30, 2008 12:01 PM:
"I will support HRC over Obama only cause i see in her more balls and backbone than what i see on Obama"
Yes, from what I have seen, as a man, Clinton is not only more of a woman than Obama, she is also more of a man.
I am fed up with tweedy, self-absorbed, self-impressed northeastern liberals who are hell-bent on ramming HRC down our throats. If they weren't so blind and stupid they'd see they're only going to guarantee us a McCain administration. These are the same morons who forced Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry on us and they cannot learn their lesson because they think they're so much smarter than everyone else.
Maybe, just maybe, if they could free themselves from their rampant patronizing racism (as evidenced by a desperate need to hang onto failed paternal Great White Father programs like welfare for all) or the abject stupidity of moral relativism they could see the future and get behind Obama.
But I'm guessing they like losing because it gives them the stink of moral superiority by being able to point out how screwed up everything is, "because we didn't listen to them."
rasher wrote on January 30, 2008 12:15 PM:I second Doctor Jay's post from above. I'm an Edwards leaner now leaning towards Hillary. And I really resent the attitude of certain Obama supporters that anyone supporting Hillary is stupid or uninformed. I would never accuse Obama supporters of being stupid or uniformed. I respect their choice. I'm just leaning in another direction. It seems to be more and more a disagreement over style. Some people are attracted to Obama's style of politics of compromise over confrontation. Some people are attracted to Hillary's more confrontational brand of politics. To label her supporters ignorant is offensive. And somewhat ironic coming from supporters of a candidate who talks about bringing a new tone of hope and inspiration to politics. I wish more Obama supporters would behave like they actually believe in what he is saying. Funny how many on these boards attack Hillary for her divisiveness while engaging in divisiveness. Makes me wonder if they are really who they claim to be -- Democrats supporting Obama -- but rather non-Democrats trying to stir up internecine warfare. Here's a novel idea-- try being pro-Obama instead of anti-Hillary. It's much more attractive.
milorad buggeroff wrote on January 30, 2008 12:16 PM:Edwards is a slimy weazel. He will endorse whoever offers him the best deal. He needs and wants to be somebody more important than just an ex-hack lawyer or ex - one term Senator.
His voters probably split 50-50, as half were gullible werkers who will drift to Clinton, and half were gullible parlor leftists who will drift to "change agent" Obama.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 12:17 PM:thegolux wrote on January 30, 2008 11:59 AM:
"I was just listening to On Point on NPR- they had Republican strategists on about McCain's win. It should be required listening for all Dems. It was disheartening to hear caller after caller, Democrat, Republican and Indpendent alike saying that if Hillary is the nominee, they will vote McCain. When will the left realize that she is our losing candidate?"
These are not random samples of voters (like posters on this page are not a random sample). What you are not hearing in these venues is the quiet older majority.
Take a look at some state polls (in Survey USA) of hypothetical general election matchups. While these are certainly not determinative this far out from the election, most of these polls show more Democratic defection to McCain if Obama is the nominee rather than Hillary. The lion's share of the quite older majority looks at this guy and says "No way." I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.
These patterns keep repeating themselves over and over in exit polls but it is the Obama supporters who refuse to consider the evidence.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 12:23 PM:Clinton is not only more of a woman than Obama, she is also more of a man.
It is funny you should say that. In our local paper here in St Louis, Bill McClellan (my favorite columnist) wrote about how Bill Clinton is a (wo)man for all seasons. Enjoy. :-)
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 12:24 PM:who refuse to consider the evidence.
The problem is more under 40 than over 65!
Moose49 wrote on January 30, 2008 12:24 PM:Read Harold Meyerson in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902215.html\
I think his thoughtful approach to the question of Hillary or Obama -- now especially relevant to Edwards supporters -- is right on the money. I'm paraphrasing here, the gist of his argument is that if you want the best president to fight defensive battles in a conservative era, Hillary's your woman. If you want someone with the potential to end the conservative era and transform the political dynamic, vote for Obama.
Personally, I think the latter approach is a hell of a lot more likely to fulfill Edwards' vision and policy agenda. But obviously, Edwards' supporters will have to decide this question for themselves.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 12:25 PM:rasher wrote on January 30, 2008 12:15 PM:
"To label her supporters ignorant is offensive. And somewhat ironic coming from supporters of a candidate who talks about bringing a new tone of hope and inspiration to politics."
Correct, Rasher. A friend of mine tries to tell me that Obama is bringing out the best in us. I have replied to him that based on my readings of history and my own life experiences, I have never seen a cult of personality bring out the best in us. What you are seeing is many people who are possessed by a missionary zeal but lack the skills and perspectives to translate their beliefs into convincing arguments. Many Obama supporters resemble the Hitler youth more than they resemble Peace Corps volunteers.
gcs wrote on January 30, 2008 12:14 PM:
"I am fed up with tweedy, self-absorbed, self-impressed northeastern liberals who are hell-bent on ramming HRC down our throats."
You mean like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry? Oh wait, they are backing Obama.
Hillary Clinton herself grew up in Park Ridge, Ill and spent most of her adult life in Arkansas followed by eight years in Washington. She's only been in NY since 2000 so she hardly qualifies as Northeaster.
Your knowledge of Northeasterners appears to be at best second hand and third rate so let me explain something to you. Although Northeasterners now have a distinct preference for Democrats (And, by the way, that was far, far, far less true prior to Bill Clinton. The upper New England states hardly ever voted Democratic before him. NJ and CT were more Republican than Democratic in national elections. PA was very, very marginal. Even MA went twice for Ronald Reagan), Northeasterners are not particularly liberal. If you don't believe me, go take a job and live in Central Pennsylvania for five years. A friend of mine from the South did that and she considers the place far more redneck than her home state of Tennessee.
What we have here is high profile liberal elites backing Obama while their not-so-liberal Northeastern constituents decline to follow them.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 12:39 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 12:23 PM:
"It is funny you should say that. In our local paper here in St Louis, Bill McClellan (my favorite columnist) wrote about how Bill Clinton is a (wo)man for all seasons. Enjoy. :-)"
OK, I'll concede that she is more of a man than Bill, too!
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 12:39 PM:"Many Obama supporters resemble the Hitler youth more than they resemble Peace Corps volunteers."
Oh,Lombard!
And what planet are you from, cult personality, history, own life experiences, missionary zeal, etc! What and whose history are you talking about. HRC has a lot of support coming from your wing in your world? So have you been drinking Johnson's kool aid? Please, enjoy!
An honest to god idiot wrote:
***
What you are seeing is many people who are possessed by a missionary zeal but lack the skills and perspectives to translate their beliefs into convincing arguments. Many Obama supporters resemble the Hitler youth more than they resemble Peace Corps volunteers.
**
This from a presumable shill of one of the most corrupt politicians in the country-hillary and the Billsbury dough boy.
I am still voting for Edwards in the Primary. Obama and HRC have already been bought and paid for by corporations and their lobbyists. Why on earth would you people vote for somebody who is going to kick your concerns to the curb, because your not greasing thier palms.
And come November, I will vote for whomever has been bribed the least.
Did anyone notice that in Hillary's big "victory interview" yesterday, when asked what the first thing she would do was, she said she would get that old panel together to plan how to "withdraw from Iraq within 60 days."
She worded it just like that, beautifully open ended, omitting the word "start" -- as she does from time to time depending on who she's talking to. In light of the news that the other candidates knew Edwards was dropping out yesterday, I think this is an even more disingenuous parseable than she usually comes out with.
Please let's not try to run her and big dog against McCain. It's not going to work. For god's sake, McCain is going to have the clearer liberal statement on torture and immigration, she can't really attack him on Iraq, he's going to badger her for transparency on the previous admin docs which feels Bushy, and all Hillary will have is healthcare (which is going to be a problem of its own given her history.) This is a bad matchup. There's not that much time left to back out of this.
suntzu wrote on January 30, 2008 12:50 PM:Slightly off-topic but it is so refreshing to come here and read the posts, which are mostly intelligent attempts to debate and share reasonably. I've been reading blogs at HuffPo and there is so much Clinton vs. Obama venom going back and forth that it is not fun or interesting anymore. I like a lively debate but the insults and name-calling grate after a while.
Bupalos wrote on January 30, 2008 12:50 PM:If it was only "slightly" more in NC, I have to think it's more of a wash in more liberal states, or even an Obama edge. On policy, and on candidate fellow feeling, obviously it should be.
Firstthingwedo wrote on January 30, 2008 12:53 PM:As an Edwards supporter, this makes me very sad.
I have to say that one of the big disadvantages to considering switching to Obama is how nasty and smug so many of his supporters on these boards are. In every policy position where Obama and Clinton differ, Obama is almost always more conservative, yet somehow he's the god of change? I grant that the man has charisma and his supporters love him. But they don't seem to really know what he plans to do... it's almost like someone told him "you have great charisma, you should run for president!" Kind of like what someone once told GWB.
Obama scares me.
Also, Hillary is clearly more liberal than Bill Clinton was, though not nearly so much as I'd like. She's a known quantity. I get the sense that a lot of Obama's supporters are just anti-Clinton democrats who don't really care much about their candidate... and I've never understood their bitterness.
I haven't made up my mind. I'd expect Hillary to be more successful making achievable changes. I'd expect Obama to go after some bigger targets, but to fail most of the time. But anyone who thinks the choice is obvious is wearing blinders.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 12:56 PM:Firstthingwedo wrote on January 30, 2008 12:53 PM:
"Also, Hillary is clearly more liberal than Bill Clinton was, though not nearly so much as I'd like."
Yes, I think you are probably right, and as a moderate Democrat (probably conservative in these pages) that is one feeling that makes me a little uneasy about her.
Bupalos wrote on January 30, 2008 12:58 PM:>>>Obama's repeated proclaimations of refusal to stand up for our Constitutional Rights when his voice would have mattered is beyond the pale.
>>>
Can you flesh that out Richard? I, as one Obama supporter, do indeed understand and sympathize with your decision to stick with Edwards. And I'm eager to hear specific criticism of my candidate.
I'm still hopefull this new pool of available voters that you find yourself in will push Obama further left, especially on the war and the urgency to get out. I'm more friendly to Edwards rhetoric, but I think pragmatically the better chance to actually achieve what he is talking about requires a realignment, and I hope Obama can deliver that. I have no doubt that in every way, Clinton continues our course further right, most especially by firing up the opposition.
colonpowwow wrote on January 30, 2008 1:04 PM:When Hillary Clinton's campaign gets really rolling on painting John McCain (accurately) as an out-of-the-mainstream-center conservative draped in the mantle of the Bush-Republican War - please name one state that Kerry/Edwards won that Clinton won't carry and then cosider the purple states that went red in 2004 like Ohio, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, Arkansas (especially with Clark as running mate), Iowa, West Virginia - any one of them will put her in the White House you know.
I think Obama would do just as well. McCain will be exposed for who he is and he doesn't fit the mood of 2008, post-Bush America. I sincerely believe that. Not to worry.
Steve Johnson wrote on January 30, 2008 1:05 PM:A Hillary nomination might be the best thing for the Democratic party in the long term. I know she'd lose to McCain, and then we'd have Obama in 2012 after McCain screwed things up royally.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 1:05 PM:Jon Leslie wrote on January 30, 2008 12:45 PM:
"Obama and HRC have already been bought and paid for by corporations and their lobbyists. Why on earth would you people vote for somebody who is going to kick your concerns to the curb, because your not greasing thier palms"
Jon, lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them represent tobacco companies. Others represent environmental groups. Lobbyists are always going to be around. The real questions are which lobbyists you support and by how much.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 1:07 PM:colonpowwow wrote on January 30, 2008 1:04 PM:
"Arkansas (especially with Clark as running mate)"
Wow, what an awesome choice that would be! Bill Clinton knew what he was doing when he picked Al Gore. If Hillary gets the nomination, let's hope she makes as intelligent of a choice.
johnd wrote on January 30, 2008 1:08 PM:This crap about "ending the conservative era" is nonsense. Reagan was a hollywood Republican who the powerful right loved because he let them do whatever they wanted. They annointed him with the chrism of "true conservative" to suck in the masses who hate taxes, want to save every unborn and love shooting their guns.
Moderates and Independents got both Bush's and Slick Willy elected and that's who will elect the next President, it will be the one closest to the center on every issue. McCain is kicking himself he didn't take Chuck Hagel's gauntlet walk stance on Iraq - he'd walk to the Whitehouse had he done so.
If you're anti war you definitely won't vote for McCain and my guess is you love the country too much not to vote at all, so I think the strongest candidate is the most centrist - which (right by the plan) is Hillary.
Note: Squawk Box call in political junkies saying they would vote for McCain over Clinton but consider Obama are either die hard right wingers or full fledged McCain supporters trying reverse psychology to fluff the candidate they really want to face IMHO: Obama.
I liked Edwards, but I guess it's 4 more years of crappy union contracts, +$12K a year for $1000/person $3000/family deductible $25/$75/$150 copay health insurance and racking up thousands more in loans to get my kids through college.
lombard wrote on January 30, 2008 1:18 PM:johnd wrote on January 30, 2008 1:08 PM:
"I liked Edwards, but I guess it's 4 more years of crappy union contracts, +$12K a year for $1000/person $3000/family deductible $25/$75/$150 copay health insurance and racking up thousands more in loans to get my kids through college."
Thanks, Johnd! This is exactly the kind of stuff (with details) that our Democratic nominee needs to stress. So far, I think Clinton is doing a better job of that than Obama but there is still room for improvement.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 1:21 PM:please name one state that Kerry/Edwards won that Clinton won't carry
We have played this game before. Michigan is the answer that I give. There are an awful lot of usually-democratic voters in Michigan who's present occupation is "unemployed auto-worker" who blame Bill Clinton for sending their jobs to Mexico. Add to that the fact that many of these folks are also Vietnam vets who love McCain and you have the makings of a change of color in MI this go around if Clinton is the democrat and McCain the republican.
and then cosider the purple states that went red in 2004 like Ohio, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, Arkansas (especially with Clark as running mate), Iowa, West Virginia - any one of them will put her in the White House you know.
And none of which she will carry, Clark as VP or no.
I will be only too happy to eat those words if I am wrong, because I do not want four more years of republican ineptitude, but I have little hope of a Clinton victory in the fall.
mc wrote on January 30, 2008 1:28 PM:some Obama supporters are so blinded by his speeches it turns my stomach. you can give a good speech till the cows come home, show me some substance please. some concrete plans and how you'll get them done. don't be blinded by inspiration, they are both politicians, both imperfect, both have imperfect records, we just know more about hillary's then we do obamas. with her, we know what we are getting, with him we could be in for some dissapointment. the right will slam him and he won't know what hit him. she's ready for it, delt with it. etc.
don't underestimate hillary!
and any democrat who won't vote for her if she gets the nom. should just stay home on election day and not vote!
this is an election all about the dem. issues vs. the gop issues. whats important is that regardless of who the nominee is, democrats need to show up in record numbers to get the GOP out of there and get us out of this ridiculous war, etc, etc etc!!!!!!
so i hope all you democratic hillary haters suck it up and vote for her, should she get the nomination!
I'm an Edwards supporter to the last.
I'm for him because of (1) His policies, (2) In the general he was more likely to win than any other candidate (3)He would have the broadest coat-tails for bringing in more Dems to the Senate & house. (4) He was anti-lobbyist (5) He realized that the wealthy-elite would not surrender their gains in controling our society and politics easily.
Why would I, or any Edwards supporter shift our support to Hillary?
Hillary is poison to the Democrats.
Hillary Unites and Excites Republicans while she divides and dispirits democrats.
Lots of Republicans that wouldn't go to the poles to vote for McCain will go to vote against Hillary.
Lots of Independents who would vote Democrat will vote for McCain over hillary.
All of those voting for McCain will likely then vote Republican for Senate and House.
The only thing Hillary had in common with Edwards is "fight". But she fights for herself, not against lobbyist.
If she wins the nomination I will vote for her, but after the last two weeks, I will hold my nose when I do it and I will do so with a sense of resignation.
With Hillary in office, the administration will be good, but the progressive agenda will face an enormous head wind that wouldn't be there if she wasn't there.
One thing to keep in mind is that Hill's health care plan and Edwards plans were very similar and could not be more different than Obama's. Hillary and Obama are both status Quo candidates. Don't kid yourself into thinking that my vote is going to Obama just because he talks about change.He has got to come up with a plan for me to endorse. He hasn't yet. Hillary does have some plans i can get behind.I will not follow blindly. Obama has got some fences to mend for me to support him but my support is up for grabs.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 30, 2008 2:27 PM:A Hillary nomination might be the best thing for the Democratic party in the long term. I know she'd lose to McCain, and then we'd have Obama in 2012 after McCain screwed things up royally.Despite the fact that in your scenario Bush screwing up royally won't be enough to elect Hillary?
I don't know where these Obamabots have crawled out from, but their naivete is hilarious. Hey, I'm no Clinton fan (to put it mildly) and may end up preferring that Obama get the nomination- though I'm not going to work up much enthusiasm about it. But the guy is a relatively inexperienced, standard-issue centrist triangulating Democratic politician with a fairly good line of BS- not the Second Coming.
Seattleyaker wrote on January 30, 2008 3:28 PM:The Unions that backed JRE will endorse Obama based on the fact that JRE had gained the endorsements from CTW and not AFL unions.
Our International endorsed Clinton due to two factors, the first is that the Carpenters endorsed JRE and the second being that they were told they would be shut out if they didn't support Clinton.
There is no way that the CTW Unions will back Clinton and be forced to work with AFL Unions,
Besides, we know that Obama is the best candidate regardless of what our International GPs say.
Indy wrote on January 30, 2008 4:16 PM:Everyone who thinks that Obama would be like Carter, you DID all read the part about him being a community organizer in Chicago, right?
I realize it's at a smaller scale than some of Clinton's experience.
But it's also some of the barest-knuckle politics out there.
Obama's no stranger to a fight.
J. A. Baker wrote on January 30, 2008 6:25 PM:Dunno if you guys have a clip of this, but right before Edwards spoke, Norah O'Donnell was using that poll to suggest that Edwards dropping out would benefit Sen. Clinton.
xargaw wrote on January 30, 2008 9:32 PM:I think Edwards votes will be split. More than half will go to Obama, and a few to Hillary. But probably more than a third will go to McCain. Some southern and mid-western men will vote for a white male everytime over a women or a black. Discrimination in the south and mid-west is alive and well in some sectors of the population, particularly the uneducated.
Firstthingwedo wrote on January 31, 2008 12:24 AM:I'm looking through the CNN website that compares candidates' positions. In most cases, Obama & Clinton's proposals & positions are very similar. In cases where they are different, it looks to me like Clinton's got the more liberal position and, IMO, the correct one.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/
Her health care plan is clearly superior to Obama's.
She's more clearly pro-choice.
She's more clearly against No Child Left Behind, and her education proposals in general sound more concrete.
On most issues, though... there's not much to distinguish them. I could support either one in the general election over any Republican.
My biggest knock against Hillary is that she came out in favor of regulating video game content.
Neither of them would be my top, or even my #2 choice, though, and I don't have a final decision - probably won't for a while.
Finally - re: xargaw... if you're the type of person who wouldn't support Hillary or Obama because of their race or sex... I can't imagine that you were ever an Edwards supporter. All the Edwards supporters I know looked at his being a white male as, if anything, a drawback for supporting him in the primary since we all want to see viable non-white-male candidates succeed. We supported him because his policy positions were more comprehensive and progressive, not becuase he's a white guy - same as the Kucinich supporters, I imagine.
moot23 wrote on January 31, 2008 3:31 AM:I'm an Edwards supporter. I supported him because he had the best platform. Period.
In the primaries, I pick by platform above all else. I choose the ideas I want to see elevated and discussed.
In the general, I'll stick with what the party as a whole decides, but I will say this.
The folks who think Obama is a superhero are seriously deluded. If the guy was truly gutsy he would have come to the fore on the Military Commissions Act. He would have come to the fore on FISA. He would be calling press conferences and asking John Boehner and John McCain if they really want a Democratic president telling the telecom companies when they can and can't break the law without consequence. If Obama were a hero, I'd know it by now, and he would have my vote in a heartbeat.
He's fine. So is Hillary. They are both immeasurably better than the Republican alternatives. Period.
moot23 wrote on January 31, 2008 3:35 AM:I'm an Edwards supporter. I supported him because he had the best platform. Period.
In the primaries, I pick by platform above all else. I choose the ideas I want to see elevated and discussed.
In the general, I'll stick with what the party as a whole decides, but I will say this.
The folks who think Obama is a superhero are seriously deluded. If the guy was truly gutsy he would have come to the fore on the Military Commissions Act. He would have come to the fore on FISA. He would be calling press conferences and asking John Boehner and John McCain if they really want a Democratic president telling the telecom companies when they can and can't break the law without consequence. If Obama were a hero, I'd know it by now, and he would have my vote in a heartbeat.
He's fine. So is Hillary. They are both immeasurably better than the Republican alternatives. Period.
NotanObama orClintonsupporter wrote on January 31, 2008 5:03 AM:Amen moot23
