OK, it's Edwards v Romney. And it's all settled by March 1

[cali]

just what does Edwards do about the funding gap?

For those who don't know here's a brief explanation of why it's a problem:

Once there are presumptive nominees- and that will happen early this year- the repuke and dem candidates start battling it out. Edwards took public matching funds for the primary season and that doesn't end until the convention. He'll be very limited as to what he can spend between March and the convention in August. That's over 5 months. 5 months that the repukes will have to frame Romney in a positive light. Edwards won't have that same opportunity. 527s can't coordinate with the campaign and they can't run candidate ads. Accepting matching funds means accepting strict limitations on spending. So matter how much money we raise for him in the spring and early summer, it won't be of much help.

It sucks, but that's the way it is this year. And if Edwards is the nominee, we won't be on an even playing field regarding funding. And money is important, much as we may deplore that fact.

I am not trying to discourage anyone from voting for Edwards. I don't want him to be the nominee; that's hardly a secret, but everyone should pick the candidate that they prefer. Having said that, I do think this a valid concern.

[tekisui]

1. We can have 5 months of 527 Mormon ads.

I think we'll be okay.

[EV_Ares]

2. Not trying to discourage anyone from voting for Edwards! yet, don't

want him to be the nominee, constant daily attacking Edwards in one way or another.

Yes, I will pick the candidate I prefer not the one you prefer, thanks for more Edwards information for us all.

[cali]

3. Do you run around in all the threads that criticize Obama or Clinton

or others, having conniptions? I don't make any bones about the fact that I don't want Edwards as a candidate and I post to that effect. I don't bash him on his haircut. I criticize him substantively. And you don't seem to have a cogent comment about the subject in the OP.

[EV_Ares]

6. Do you go around and bash Edwards all the time? I have

a right to post my comments on this board (you are not the decider of who posts) and you have already brought up the funding issue once of which you got several replies to it at that time.

[King Coal]

14. Cali, you will be much better off if you just vote for who we tell you to vote for.

You get all juiced up and make crazy decisions. So, just trust us, and you'll do fine.

:smoke:

[last_texas_dem]

4. Guess I'll just have to vote for Romney

I know that dude has the money on his side, and is in it to win it.

[cali]

5. Just pointing out why Edwards may not be the sure thing

that some here think he is. There seems to be some DU conventional wisdom that Edwards is our best candidate against the repukes. Here's one reason why that may not be true.

[EV_Ares]

7. You forgot about the latest poll that shows he is the only dem candidate

thats beats every single republican candidate.

[NightWatcher]

8. Everyone will hate me but, "electabilty, electability, electability"

he is the only one who CAN be elected by Middle America. We are not progressive enough yet to vote for a woman or African American. I am sorry but once that curtain closes, I dont trust the average white male to vote for something different that 'one of their own'. I pray I'll be wrong on this one day.

[cali]

10. nonsense. There's really no way you can accurately make that statement.

It's merely an opinion. And what the average white male does, is hardly the whole story. For one thing, not every white male fits the stereotype- by a long shot. And secondly, there are more women registered to vote than men. In addition, both Obama and Clinton would be able to fight for votes from March to August, while Edwards would largely be silenced.

[karynnj]

16. First off, your assumption can be disputed

Second, Edwards is not the only white male in politics. If everyone made your assumption, Obama and HRC wouldn't be far ahead of edwards. But assume they all realize this. Not only are we a less deserving country, buy the race instantly transforms - when the choice is then Edwards and the second tier candidates but possibly someone like Gore. (If I'm making zero probability comments, let's make two.) It doesn't have to make Edwards the nominee.

[cali]

9. No. Actually, I didn't forget about it.

I don't see what that has to do with the OP. That poll is merely a snapshot, and to date, Edwards hasn't been put in the crosshairs of the press the way Obama and Clinton have.

[EV_Ares]

11. This is what it has to do with this OP of which you made this stmt:

"Just pointing out why Edwards may not be the sure thing
that some here think he is. There seems to be some DU conventional wisdom that Edwards is our best candidate against the repukes. Here's one reason why that may not be true.l"

The poll shows your conventional wisdom may not be true in this op.

[cali]

12. that's absurd. his polling has nothing to do with the fact

that his acceptance of public funding will be a handicap for him if he's the nominee.

[EV_Ares]

13. Your opinion! It is a reason that shows he could be the best candidate

against your opinion of which is totally unproven and if he is the nominee, he will be funded to run a campaign just fine.

[karynnj]

15. Which would be great if the general election were next week

The OP makes a serious point. As neither party has an incumbent, the goal after the nominees are chosen will be to define your candidate positively, while raising issues about theirs. 527s can do the latter, but not the former.

This is a serious problem, especially for Democrats. The Republicans have a perfected echo chamber which will be doing both these functions first time. They sold W, a former mean drunk, ne'er do well son of GHWB, as Godly and a nice guy. It is not hard to believe that they will work hard to do that with which ever of their lame candidates that is nominated. Democratic 527s could do issue ads picking up themes associated with Edwards and Edwards could appear on TV.

Look to the past to see how big a problem this could be. Just remember how much time the cable and network shows gave the SBVT vs any people raising issues with Bush on anything. Kerry had the Naval records fully on his side. Imagine a hit on Edwards about anything - true or untrue. It is unlikely that the facts will be as clear as with the SBVT and Edwards faces a much longer period where he can't spend money - wheras Kerry only had to conserve his money.