Holy Cow! What If Edwards Wins? Whoa Nelly!

[leftyladyfrommo]

I probably like John Edwards best for a lot of reasons. One of the big ones is that he seems to be able to just say no when he thinks things are wrong. He isn't wishy washy.

But I never expected he would be able to put himself back in this race.

I'm glad he has. Good for him. And good for us, too.

[bryant69]

1. I am glad to see it too

He's better than Obama and a lot better than Hillary Clinton.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftyladyfrommo]

3. I like Obama, too.

Hillary not so much. But I would still vote for her over any of the Republicans.

[rodeodance]

2. well, if does, then the cow would indeed be Holy.

[SteppingRazor]

4. Yeah, that's the question -- what then?

With neither the cash nor the organization of Clinton or Obama, I don't even know if a first-place finish in Iowa can make Edwards the final nominee. He's far enough behind in NH that an Iowa win won't provide enough bump to him, which means it'll probably go to Clinton, who'll then go on to carry Florida and possibly SC on her way to the nomination.


At this point, an Obama win in Iowa means a fight between Obama and Clinton all the way till Feb. 5. A Clinton win in Iowa means a very likely Clinton nomination. An Edwards win in Iowa means a slightly less likely, but still probable, Clinton nomination.

[onehandle]

6. Iowa pushed Kerry from 4%er to frontrunner.

Edwards isn't that far behind in NH.

[SteppingRazor]

7. Well, that's not quite true.

Here's some polling from 2003:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/

Note that Kerry was the initial leader in NH, then fell behind Dean. But he was always in a comfortable second place. Then, after Iowa, he bumped from second to first.

But that's not a luxury that Edwards has. There's two candidates above him, not one, and neither of those candidates is dipping in the polls in the way Dean did just before Iowa. I agree that, certainly, Edwards would receive a bump from a win in Iowa, but I don't know that the situation is analogous to 2004.

[Canuckistanian]

9. I'm sick of hearing about money in these campaigns

X has a greater "warchest" than Y. Who's leading the money race. Who has the most corporate sponsors.

And all this talk is just proving the absurd ruling by the USSC that "money is equal to free speech".

Is all this money REALLY necessary? How many thousands of ads does it take? How many campaign stops? How much wining and dining journalists and printing up endless campaign literature that nobody looks at?

Does any really need to see a candidate's message 500 times? We do have the Intenets and newspapers and that television thingie that do a GREAT job of transferring information. Does it need to be slammed in your face 24/7 for a whole year?

[SteppingRazor]

11. It's the "television thingie" that costs the most.

Air time for ads is a huge campaign expense, and so far, the combined presidential campaigns have blown $50 million in IOWA ALONE.

I agree that a race can't be based entirely on money earned (just look at Huckabee's campaign over on the GOP side), but it's a fallacy to pretend that money doesn't matter. In both national and statewide races, if one candidate has raised significantly more money than his/her opponent, that candidate will win nine times out of ten.

[OzarkDem]

12. If Edwards wins, the donors switch to funding him

money follows the victorious candidates.

[DCKit]

23. It's not as if the big money donors didn't hitch their carts to...

HRC, Obama, Huckleberry, Mittens and the Ghoul early on. Unless those candidates give up the cash to the front-runners, it's gone - at least to the DNC, DLC, RNC, etc..., or their next personal campaign war chest and I don't see the DLC giving a cent to Edwards, Biden or Kucinich. According to the massive amounts of money donated by corporations and groups, HRC is and was the inevitable candidate with each of the aforementioned others being considered a reasonable and serious contender. I guess they forgot to ask any real people for their opinions.

As an aside, I hate commercials, I especially hate political commercials and I've heard that Iowans detest negative campaigns. I'm hoping that everything about tomorrow is a huge surprise. However, if the counts in Iowa and then NH follow the money, I'm going to be pissed and VERY suspicious.

[krkaufman]

16. ... in your opinion ...

All speculation is speculation. From the OP to every other post doing the same.

We're not much better than the "news" media horserace.

[undeterred]

5. It means he will have momentum.

It doesn't mean he will necessarily win.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. I hope he does

I have come around to believing that he is probably the best candidate running this year and he will probably get my vote for the nomination. I would switch my vote in a heartbeat if either Gore or Kerry (or Feingold) jumped into the race but, at this point I just don't see it happening.
I want to vote for/like Hilary but I feel like she is trying to act "Republican-lite". I don't know if her public comments are her attempt to triangulate or show everybody that she can be "tough" enough for the job or what but we need a more progressive candidate and a reversal of Bush II-era "policies" and way of running government. She may not be "Bush III" but her corporate ties and unabashed support for the Iraq war/occupation make me hesitant to support her. Her new Romney-like health care "reform" proposal also sucks IMHO.
I like Obama and I think that he's got a lot of good ideas and could serve as a powerful voice for national unity but, frankly, I don't sense that the party on the other side of the aisle, at least in its current incarnation, is as concerned about national unity and I'm concerned that he might not be experienced/seasoned enough to run for President, at least not yet. I'm also not sure how tough he'd be able to be against the Republican/MSM "smear machine" although most people don't seem to have paid so much attention to the "Manchurian Candidate"-esque smears regarding his early education that have popped up to date.
Edwards' stance on the issues seem overall most in sync with mine, he's from the south and seems to understand the electoral significance of that part of the country, he seems to have toughened up a bit since 2004, and I appreciate his contrition regarding his sponsorship of the 2002 IWR although I still think that he, along with the rest of the Democrats who voted for it, should've known better that Bush would not (and did not) promote the resolution in good faith and that he was going to lead us into an invasion/occupation of Iraq anyway whether or not the UN restarted the inspection process and actually found anything.
However, be that as it may, I will be voting Democratic whoever wins because we simply can NOT afford another 4-8 years of Republican dominance of the executive branch, especially with the people they currently have running!

[Clark2008]

10. I'll run screaming from the Party.

He *IS* wishy-washy, from my educated perspective, which troubles me greatly.

[krkaufman]

17. Sorry to hear the Repubs would pick-up another voter. n/t

[Generator]

19. Well you know Hillary is the new Republican

like Clark used to be. (though his supporters would spend the next oh fourteen years arguing he was NEVER a Republican)

[krkaufman]

21. Funny.

I was one of those Clark supporters in 2004, and, no matter how he might have voted in the past, his platform in 2004 was a damn sight more progressive than nearly any other candidate, and he was one of the FEW Democratic candidates who'd had the foresight and judgement to make the right call on Iraq and the "use of force" resolution.

That doesn't mean I'm not deeply disappointed in his support of Hillary this time around, but I'm not going to be hyperbolic and call either him *or* Hillary "Republicans." Sounds like the attitude of the fundamentalist right wing.

[GreenTea]

13. It will be great! ONLY fencing-sitting moderates don't care for the fighter Edwards!

But who gives a fuck what a moderate thinks anyway....They've all voted for a republicans in their lifetime....they are the most gullible, middle of the road, which ever way the wind blows, flip-flopers....Fools, robots who believe they are astute & educated!

[erebusman]

14. its important for someone other than hillary to win

IMHO -- it is critically important for someone other than Hillary to win in Iowa , even if only by 1%.

The reason is THEN it finally becomes a RACE instead of a cheer leading MSM squad carrying the corporatist candidate on their shoulders all the way to the white house.


peace

[LaPera]

15. Edwards will win Iowa!

[Generator]

18. Don't worry CNN has

Edwards yell or crying jag in the can. OH YOU know they do. Bastards. They really do hate America.

[asdjrocky]

20. I'm in Iowa to see to it. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

22. I will be happy.

:)

[Dawggie]

24. I'll sure as shit recommend this train of thought! K&R

[Kurovski]

25. I'm glad too. K&R. (nt)