CORRECTION: A couple of people have pointed this out to me – the numbers I was reading off the Nevada Democratic Party website were for the delegates to the state convention. The actual number of voters was 116,000 — a record. Edwards got considerably more than the numbers I give in the first two paragraphs, below. And one respected political commentator has written to tell me that Edwards’ actual vote total was probably closer to 10%. Still, it was a disaster and the rest of my column stands.
Let us begin by being completely honest. John Edwards suffered a stinging defeat yesterday in Nevada. He polled only 3.75% of the vote state-wide. Fewer than 400 people in the state voted for him. In Clark County (where Las Vegas is), Edwards polled only 1.5% of the vote. There, where Hillary Clinton won over 4,000 votes, Edwards had 115 supporters. The scale of the defeat cannot be overstated — this was catastrophic.
And in a sense, unexpected. There were Edwards rallies in Nevada attended by hundreds of his supporters. In Reno three days ago, it was reported by a number of sources that Edwards had 1,500 people at a rally. If so, that would have included every single one of his voters in the state, plus 1,100 Obama and Clinton voters as well. And let’s not forget the two sets of polls that barely a week ago showed all three candidates in a dead heat.
Edwards has lost a major battle, and his chances to win the presidential nomination have been considerably reduced, to say the least. His opponents have now written him off completely. The mainstream media, which ignored him when he beat Hillary Clinton into third place in Iowa, has even more reason to ignore him. And I presume that many of his supporters are having second thoughts this morning.
With all the ups and downs of the primary season, there are two things that I have consistently said about the Edwards campaign. First, that John Edwards represents the most progressive candidate we’ve seen in a generation (or more). And second, that were he to win the Democratic nomination, he’d beat any Republic candidate. I still believe those things are true, even if he did have Kucinich-like results in Nevada.
I knew — we all did — that he was going to have a hard fight against Clinton. And when Obama entered the race, it became clear that Edwards’ chances of winning the nomination were made even slimmer.
Only if one of the two front-runners withdraws from the race will Edwards now have a shot at the nomination. Is this possible? It is, and it is even likely.
If Clinton continues to win primary after primary, Obama may at some point withdraw. In the last few decades, this is what happens in Democratic Party politics. You fight it out in the first few states, and then you gracefully withdraw from the race and back the front-runner. In 2004, this is what Dean, Clark, Gephardt and Edwards all did. By early March 2004, John Kerry was the only man standing (among candidates with significant support).
This is what it is likely Obama will do — or Clinton, should their fortunes be reversed. Expect one of them to pull out shortly after Super Tuesday, 5 February.
And this where an opportunity arises for John Edwards. By the morning of 6 February, the race will probably be all over according to the pundits. Senator Clinton is likely to be the front-runner, and Obama — if he follows the pattern of all recent elections — will withdraw. If John Edwards decides to stay in the race, even with a relatively small number of delegates, and challenges Clinton in the remaining states — of which there are dozens — he may pick up many of the former Obama supporters. And the race will get interesting again.
The first round of post Super Tuesday states takes place on 9 February, and includes Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington. These are followed by Maine, Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland. In other words, of the first seven post Super Tuesday states, there are key southern and border states where Edwards could expect to do well in any event. Were Obama to leave the race (or Clinton for that matter), there is a clear opening for an insurgent candidate challenging the establishment. John Edwards is perfectly suited to play that role.
According to reports last night, Edwards is staying in the race. I’m glad he’s doing so. Whether he wins or loses, this is a fight worth fighting. And based on the experience of previous primary campaigns, in which all the candidates except the front-runner withdraw early on, it is a fight he can still win.
Hope it works out that way Eric.
i feel like some of your statements are misleading, and that you may not understand the caucus system. To say that John only 400 people vote for him is inaccurate.
Edwards likely had much more than 4 percent of dems in NV. But the way the caucus works, he likely wasnt viable in many precincts, so edwards supporters had to realign and choose a 2nd choice. So the people who supported edwards initally, now are counted towards the total for Obama and Hillary. Its like instant run off voting almost.
So if it were a true primary, edwards would have fared much better.
It was the same situation in Iowa. Richardson only got 2 percent because all of his inital supporters had to realign, he fared better in NH where they had a tradtional primary election.
I believe the Clinton/Obama vote-drawing strength shown in the primaries thus far has led many Edwards supporters to conclude that one or the other of them will get the nomination, so they’re abandoning Edwards in the hope of influencing which of those two get it. It’s a shame, but we’ve got to view what’s happening in the light of seven years of absolute disaster for working people in the U.S. and the desperation by so many to keep the White House from remaining in Republican hands. Edwards is clearly the best of the three for the labor agenda, but the other two are seen as pro-labor… and we are desperate for someone pro-labor. That desparation is driving so much of the Democratic vote at this point.
SOURCE http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/nyt_edwards_camp_doesnt_expect_to_win_even_one_primary.php
NYT: Edwards Camp Doesn’t Expect To Win Even One Primary
By Eric Kleefeld – January 21, 2008, 10:59AM
Will John Edwards manage to win a single contest in all of Campaign 2008? Even his aides don’t think so, according to the New York Times:
But his aides have said privately that they do not expect Mr. Edwards to win a single primary state. And the results of the Nevada caucuses threw the campaign’s top advisers into hours of strategy meetings Saturday night, debating how the shellshocked campaign could feasibly continue.
In the end, the campaign held onto its longstanding position of simply hanging on. “There’s just no reason not to go to South Carolina, pick up delegates and watch the dynamics of the race play out for a while,” one adviser said.
It’s looking like Edwards’ goal now is to pick up enough delegates to force a brokered convention, where Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would have to make some kind of deal with him. Will he have enough money, and get enough votes, to actually pull it off?
print share PERMALINK | COMMENTS (11) | TOPICS: Edwards
Fifty or sixty years ago when conventions still mattered and negotiations among politicos wheeling and dealing still mattered, your scenario concerning Edwards’ prospects might have made sense. But today when conventions merely confirm the outcome of a protracted primary electoral campaign, they coronate the primary winner. In that system, Edwards’ candidacy is doomed by three factors. One, the media have marginalized Edwards’ candidacy, turning the primaries into a contest between prospective first woman or first African American president, a contest in which issues are secondary and personality or identity dominant. Two, Clinton and Obama have the money that buys media attention and advertising time, and that Edwards lacks. Three, Clinton and Obama have the organizations and volunteers that deliver actual voters, another asset that Edwards lacks.
Even if Edwards favors superior policies and would be a stronger presidential candidate than Clinton or Obama, convention delegates today are bound by the results of the primaries, results that will deliver the nomination to Clinton or Obama.
Regretfully, I have concluded that the Socialist Party of America leaders were right a century ago when they opposed the primary system as it came into being, a system that Democratic and Republican politicians at first controlled in their own party interest. Socialists thought that only paid-up, regularly participating party members should have the right, as well as the responsibility, to choose their candidates. In practice until the old party-run convention system blew up at the end of the 1960s, Republican and Democratic politicos did select their party’s candidates whatever the primary results. They usually did so in a manner that best kept their party united and in the best position for contesting the ensuing general election. The problem with the convention system as it operated in practice, however, was that it functioned primarily as an old white boys network. For Democrats that would no longer be the case today (the same could not be said for Republicans). Any Democratic convention today would include delegates and delegate leaders (politicos) diversified by gender, race, ethnicity, sexual preferences and numerous other markers. It might be nice if convention leaders, men, women, African Americans, Hispanics (Latinos), Asian Americans, et. al., could bargain among themselves, hash out their differences, and then agree upon a common slate and a common platform. In such a setting, Edwards, though a white man from the south, might have a chance. As it is today, unless South Carolina delivers an unexpected surprise and February 5 a mini-revolution, Edwards’ continued candidacy would be at best a Quixotic pursuit, and, at worst, a vain ego trip.
It is not likely if the present trends continue that the race will be decided on Feb.5th. Most of the pundits assume that the end result of Super Tuesday will be close to a wash with Clinton and Obama each having more than 1000 delegates pledged to them. Each is likely to win a number of states and exactly how the percentages breakdown in each state will determine the exact number of delegates they win.
The difference between this campaign and 2004 or previous campaigns is that the front loading made it less likely rather than more likely that candidates would drop out quickly. (Just look at the Republicans.)
The main reason people would drop out in past elections was that their donors stopped giving because continued effort was obviously not going to improve their standing. When they were using public money rather than private money in past elections they would lose the threshold to continue to receive matching funds.
Both Obama and Clinton should do well enough to continue to have the resources to battle on. Edwards on the other hand is going to have increasing problems getting his message to voters. He will have to pick just a few of the 22 states on Super Tuesday and rely on free media.
More importantly as time passes and if Edwards fails to do better, it is likely that increasing numbers of his voters will begin to look to one of the other candidates so as not to “waste their vote.”
There are important primaries in March and even April. If Edwards has not improved his standing somehow his voters will start deciding to vote for who they want to win the primary between Obama and Clinton, rather than who represents their views.
The key numbers to begin to look at after Feb 5th are who has the most convention delegates and who is ahead in the aggregate popular vote.
If it is a race to the convention and a full blown delegate hunt the most compelling argument to the super delegates will be who got the most votes.
Edwards will get delegates when he achieves more than 15% of the vote. So it is possible that he will be able to have an impact on the convention. He has been driving the programatic direction of the debate. That is quite important. What is in the platform will matter.
Your overall point that Edwards has run the most progressive campaign remains true. But the force of Obama’s campaign and its success has take much of the political space from him. Edwards should stay in the race so long as he thinks he is being effective.
I would argue that it is unclear among the three of them whose presidency would create the most space for progressive political change. Clinton certainly would unite the Republicans in Congress against her from day one. There are arguments for both Obama and Edwards as stronger general election candidates.
I think that any of them can be elected, under the present circumstances.
The end result of the Democratic primaries is almost certainly going to be either a Clinton or Obama victory and whoever gets it, there will be enormous pressure to put the other on the ticket.
Who gets the top spot may be determined by whichever of them successfully incorporates more of Edwards’ message into their own campaign between now and the convention.