Letters to the Editor
-
early stages of media group-think?
I heard the pundits on CNN talking about this last night, and I can already see some media group-think at work here.
Let me guess, soon you'll be saying:
A VOTE FOR EDWARDS IS A VOTE FOR CLINTON.
Whatever. The fact is you have no idea where Edwards votes would have gone. Any speculation is just that, speculation. And frankly I don't care.
Obama needs to EARN his votes just like everyone else.
-
It's a shame.
Edwards is the hands down best democratic candidate and New Hampshire gave it to someone who takes huge amounts of money from News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch. Sickening.
Give the nomination to Hillary and we'll have another 4 years under the anti-american GOP. Thanks a lot dems.
-
Not a good idea to Assume anything
My theory is that Hillary won last night at least partly because she pulled support away from John Edwards, NOT from Barack Obama.
We love Obama's inspirational rhetoric, but as my husband put it, "It's like going to a motivational seminar. When you leave afterward, it's Yes We Can - oops, what's that brick wall doing there?" I want to trust his ability to follow through on his promises, but I really think he underestimates the opposition.
Underestimating the opposition is not something either Clinton or Edwards are likely to do. They've both experienced the results of that mistake by being attached to someone who got roasted.
I probably would have voted for Clinton in NH, even though John Edwards is my favored FIRST choice, because I want our next president to be someone who won't roll over when the Republican thuggees attack. In that regard, my choices are, in order: Edwards, Clinton, Obama.
But if Edwards and Clinton split the vote, Obama wins, so I would have considered voting for Clinton.
What would have pushed me over the edge is the disgustingly misogynistic media coverage of the Clinton campaign.
-
What's My Spin?
So the new spin is that Edwards has to drop out because he's a "spoiler" bleeding votes from Obama? I say Obama should drop out because he's bleeding votes from Edwards. Hell, maybe all three frontrunners should drop out because they're bleeding votes from Kucinich.
The whole idea of "spoilers" is absurd. If your favored candidate can't win an election that has three, four, even five contenders, maybe the problem is with your candidate and not the others.
It's bad enough our choice for the general election essentially boils down to two candidates. To say that there should only be a choice of two candidates for the primaries, especially after only two states have had their say, is galling.
-
Uh, thatboy...
"I say Obama should drop out because he's bleeding votes from Edwards."
...Obama beat Edwards by twenty percent. Not even close.
-
wow.
Sure didn't take old TG long to explain away an Obama loss. Your credibility is forever damaged with at least this reader, Tim Grieve.
-
Edwards' effect
It's all in the timing. If Edwards were never in the race, there would be someone else who would attract votes away from Obama. If he stays in just long enough and stays in third place, he can perminently take votes away from Obama. However, if someone like Richardson stays in the race and Edwards pulls out, that person could attract some of those votes.
The importance of Clinton's NH win can not be understated. That importance, however, is only so great because the press so overstated the importance of Iowa. Although you won't find anyone admitting it (and I doubt the press would report it if they did), the press delivering obituaries on Clinton helped her in NH. The revision of history has already begun. For example all of Tim Grieve's anti-Clinton posts from yesterday appear to have been deleted.
-
@brewmn
...Obama beat Edwards by twenty percent. Not even close.
Right you are. And if only Obama had dropped out, and if only all those people who voted for Obama had voted for Edwards, he would have won!
I know it's a ridiculous assertion. And it's just as ridiculous to say any candidate won or lost a race only because of a "spoiler," rather than winning or losing on his/her own merits.
"If only there were no other choice, my candidate would have won!"
-
I don't think it's so much that Edwards bled votes from Obama.
The one thing you can say for most Edwards supporters is that they follow him because of his message (except for a minority who support him because they think only a white man from the South can win the general election, but I don't think that's a substantial portion of Edwards' following).
But what if Edwards is not in the race? Well, the question is who is your second choice? I think it's reasonable to assume that, since Edwards has spent a lot of time going after Hillary as the "corporate" candidate, they would be less likely to switch to supporting her than they would to Obama, who occupies a more nebulous position in most people's perceptions. Obama may be just as much of a "corporate" candidate as Hillary, but that meme is not established the way it is for Hillary. Also, I detect a strong measure of contempt and personal animus for Hillary among many Edwards supporters than I don't detect for Obama.
Sure, all of this is highly speculative. Nobody really knows where the Edwards crowd would go if Edwards dropped out. And no one would happen to the Obama or Clinton supporters if one or the other of them dropped out.
-
I'm an Edwards supporter
My primary isn't until the Cabinet has been named though, so my vote doesn't mean much. And I haven't thought Edwards had much chance from the beginning. I just happen to think he's the best of the Democratic candidates.
Is he perfect? Hardly. None of them are. (Not even Obama, Obamadroids.) What he is is the guy who kicks every Repubs ass in head-to-head polling, while He Who Stands Tall With Homophobes but Gives Great Speeches and Sigh Not Clinton Again barely break even or lose. What I want IS NOT ANOTHER FREAKING RETHUGLICAN ADMINISTRATION. Pretty speeches and dynasties are irrelevant. What matters is who will beat whoever claws his way out of the GOP gutter.
Now, I have no idea if I'm a typical Edwards supporter or not. Were I voting in New Hampshire, I guarantee you my vote wouldn't have been bled from either Obama or Clinton, and if Edwards wasn't in the race I'd more likely look to other candidates than to either of them.
Policy-wise, he's more than solid and trends more progressive than either Obama or Clinton. But he won't win. It'll be one of the two anointed ones. And that's who I'll vote for in the general. I won't be thrilled, but faced with the possibility of McCain or Romney or Huckabee (thank God Rudy is dying a death), I'd almost be willing vote for Lieberman, so of course I'll vote for Obama or Clinton2. I just won't be as pleased about it as I would be if it were Edwards.