"If Edwards wins Nevada and comes in better-than-expected in South Carolina, he could yet pick up a bit support, and as he gathers delegates and a bit of media momentum, his incentives to stay in and be a kingmaker will increase."

If Edwards wins NV and comes in 1st or 2nd in SC, his ceiling will be quite a bit higher than "kingmaker".

Assuming McCain firms up his position on the other side, don't count out the only candidate who is regularly beating McCain in general election matchups.

My favorite way of quantifying where the Edwards vote would go:

In the NH exit poll, one of the most revealing questions was, "Who is most honest and trustworthy?" The results:

30% Obama
27% Clinton
21% Edwards

When you drill down into the crosstabs, you can see why Edwards underperformed. While 97% of those who chose Clinton voted for Clinton, and 88% of of those who chose Obama voted for Obama, only 58% of of those who chose Edwards voted for Edwards.

Where did those Edwards sympathetic voters who didn't vote for Edwards go?

18% Clinton
13% Obama

More or less, I think that'd be how the Edwards vote would break down if he was out of the race.

folks thinking Edwards should leave the race and endorse Obama are probably barking up the wrong tree

You don't think the actual endorsement itself would do anything to shift Edwards voters to Obama? (I'm not trying to suggest that it would, just wondering if people think the actual endorsement itself would have any effect, above and beyond Edwards's absence from the race.)

It probably is premature, though. The last few days have not reflected particularly well on Hillary or Obama, so it's probably best to have Edwards around as an insurance policy if nothing else, in case Democrats have second thoughts about the top two.

At the moment, Obama and Hillary are certainly doing Edwards a favor.

If Edwards were to pull out, I think it would be a surprise if he didn't endorse Obama. Wouldn't the effect of having the guy you support endorse Obama entice at least a slim majority of Edwards voters to go to Obama? I'd be interested to look at the data from Iowa to see who Edwards supporters' second choice was. Althought its one extremely white state, at least the polling was correct, and it could show something.

Ezra, I think you are overestimating Obama's support among Edwards' liberal/progressive supporters. I'm one of them, and I'm very conflicted as to who I would turn to if Edwards drops out. Obama is proving himself to be no progressive.

Excellent analysis Ezra. I'd even add that at this point, most of the more policy-driven supporters of Edwards have probably already jumped off the bandwagon and gone to Obama.

I would add that while Edwards has every incentive to stay in and be kingmaker, I don't necessarily see how this works for his staff. A presidential campaign is more than one person, and there are hundreds of people currently working for Edwards that are probably less interested in just helping him get a good deal. I don't know what they'll do.

"most of the more policy-driven supporters of Edwards have probably already jumped off the bandwagon and gone to Obama."

Deeply weird analysis, Tony V.

If you're an Edwards supporter purely on policy, you almost definitely go to Clinton in a Coke vs Pepsi race.

-----

Of course, the whole point of Ezra's (mostly correct) post here is that what matters is where Edwards' low-information supporters would go. And those folks certainly aren't policy-driven.

I'm with GrenVTster. I'm a liberal/progressive supporter, and Obama is definitely third place in my mind. If I was voting purely on ideology/issues, Edwards would be my number one choice. But since he has no chance of winning (and since he is running an awful campaign), I'm with Hillary.

If candidate A is drawing disproportionately from one candidate (let's leave out for now whether it's candidate B or C) with the intention of evenetually throwing his support that way, who does it help? It seems like drawing support from candidate C while eventually endorsing candidate B would be a net positive for B, but given the 15% math, it may not.

From:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/15/is-an-edwards-surprise-looming-in-nevada/
For the first time since polling began in the Silver State, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has taken a slight lead over U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, and former U.S. John Edwards has come within shooting distance of the two front-runners.

Of 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers surveyed, 32 percent favored Obama, 30 percent favored Clinton, and 27 percent favored Edwards.

It's up for grabs. And this is impressive (emphasis mine):

Most surprising was Edwards' standing, which jumped 15 points from the last RGJ poll in November. Edwards was second in Iowa and third in New Hampshire and has not campaigned in Nevada since those contests.

Think about that. He hasn't been there and he's surging. Compare and contrast his media coverage with Willard's or Grandpa's and ask yourself why he's not getting more press.

If Edwards wins Nevada, all bets are off. He'll get a big bump and 2 weeks of fawning press as the "Comeback Kid" before he returns to the state that he won in 2004. Stranger things have happened -- let's not anoint anyone just yet.

FWIW, I expect to vote for Edwards when my state rolls around. And for the folks counting Edwards out, you're fools for thinking so before NV and SC weigh in.

But if he's not on the ballot for whatever reason, I'll probably hold my nose and vote Obama, almost exclusively because the whole Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton thing is so objectionable on a wide variety of levels.

If Senator Clinton had a different last name, I'd almost definitely vote for her over the rightward leaning ideological blob that is Barack Obama.

Ezra: I probably don't share the demographics of the average Edwards voter (I'm more of a wonky liberal), but I agree with your analysis. I'll support either Clinton or Obama against the Republican nominee, but, as grating as she can be, I think Clinton's a safer bet to win the general. She also doesn't give me the same sort of non-progressive vibes I get from Obama when it comes to the economy. I know she's showing her true bitch color at the moment, but I don't think it comes anywhere near being "racist" as such (I mean, the MLK comment, though tin-eared, was entirely correct; you do need the right political leadership to go along with the activists, because the latter aren't empowered by our constitution to enact legislation). And anyway, her "true bitch colors" are why I think she's a safer bet to win in November. All that said, I do hope, if she does prevail, Obama will be on the ticket. If he prevails, I don't think HRC would be a plausible running mate.

If Senator Clinton had a different last name, I'd almost definitely vote for her over the rightward leaning ideological blob that is Barack Obama.

Petey: I share your consternation about the dynasty issue. But it's the freakin' presidency we're talking about. Shouldn't you hold your nose and vote for her, if you think she's better in other regards. If anything, I think this makes another Bush presidency less likely (surely voters wouldn't allow yet another chapter of dynastic politics to unfold), and, AFAIK, there are no more Clintons who will be ready to run anytime soon.

So, are Edwards/Clinton/Obama our answer to 1960's Stevenson/LBJ/JFK?

If Edwards wins Nevada, all bets are off. He'll get a big bump and 2 weeks of fawning press as the "Comeback Kid" before he returns to the state that he won in 2004.

Wrong - the MSM have been building the case for ignoring Nevada. Not much bump, little fawning.

If Hillary had lost NH and then won NV, she'd have gotten some ink. But the press wants to shut Edwards out, and shut him out they will.

And in 2004, Edwards was competing against John Kerry for the affections of SC Dems. Much lower bar than this time.

For Edwards, "better than expected" in SC after a NV win means third with 25% of the vote. Second is a longshot, and first is right out.

It still doesn't get him back into the race.

"Petey: I share your consternation about the dynasty issue. But it's the freakin' presidency we're talking about. Shouldn't you hold your nose and vote for her, if you think she's better in other regards."

I find both Clinton and Obama to be unappealing candidates, which is why I'll be voting for Edwards if he's on the ballot in my state. (And again, the folks who are counting Edwards out are jumping the gun here in a fundamental way.)

But if I'm forced to choose between the unappealing, I have to decide which version of unappealing is more unappealing.

And as of the moment, I find continuing the two family dynasty to be slightly more of a threat to the future of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement than going with the rightward leaning ideological blob that is Barack Obama.

There is a perfectly valid case to be made for the reverse weighting of threats, of course.

Anon:
I am an Edwards supporter. I don't know which of the two I'd vote for in a primary if JRE has dropped out by the time things get to PA. Of course I wish that Gore or Feingold had run.

I'm for Edwards, and would immediately go to Hillary for one reason alone--she's a fighter. Neither Obama's nor Hillary's records are liberal or progressive, so it's not about that. It's about fighting the GOP, and pushing good legislation through, and cleaning up the mess.

That said, i want Edwards in until the Convention, and i want him to get the nomination.

http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/01/for_those_of_you_who_think_its.html

January 14, 2008 9:03 AM
For the Blowhards Who Insist It's a Two-Way Race...

For those of you who think the Democratic presidential nomination fight is just a two-way race between Obama and Clinton, check out this brand new poll from the Reno Gazette-Journal. Yup, that's right - it shows the Nevada caucus race a three-way, dead heat with John Edwards right in the mix.

For those of you who think the Democratic presidential nomination fight is just a two-way race between Obama and Clinton, check out this brand new poll from the Reno Gazette-Journal. Yup, that's right - it shows the Nevada caucus race a three-way, dead heat with John Edwards right in the mix.

Interestingly, this poll comes right on the heels of the Establishment viciously ratcheting up its angry attacks on the Edwards candidacy. Late last week, we saw a Reuters story headlined "Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards" detailing how Wall Street moneymen and K Street lobbyists are frightened about Edwards populist, power-challenging message against greed and corruption. We also saw self-anointed Democratic "expert" Lawrence O'Donnell pen a fulminating screed demanding Edwards get out of the race - not surprising coming from a man who made his name running the U.S. Senate Finance Committee - long the most corrupt, lobbyist-ravaged panel in all of Washington (somehow, running the U.S. Congress's version of a pay-to-play casino now makes people credile "experts" in campaign strategy and political morality).

According to the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism, Edwards has long faced a media blackout - one that at least some honest media brokers like Keith Olbermann have noted. As I said a long time ago, that Edwards has even been able to compete in such a hostile environment is a testament to the power of his message.

The question we should ask is what the hostility and media blackout is really all about? I'd say the media's behavior is motivated by the same impulses that moves lobbyists to whine and cry to Reuters and self-important bloviators like O'Donnell to publicly burst a blood vessel on the Huffington Post - the people who have gotten used to the status quo are truly terrified by any candidates who they really believe will change things and threaten their power and status. Edwards is just such a candidate - one who threatens to muck up what the media and political elite want to be a race between two "nonthreatening," Wall Street-approved candidates. Obviously, it's a three-way race at this very moment - whether the Establishment likes that or not.

Let me conclude by saying I have no idea if the Gazette-Journal poll is accurate and/or whether Edwards will win Nevada (or any other state). Unlike most reporters, I don't spend my time covering the horse race, nor judging the candidates' viability only on the grounds of how much corporate cash they've been able to vacuum in. I spend my time trying to figure out which of these candidates represent the most fundamental form of change. One of the ways to judge that is to see who these candidates make uncomfortable. And by that measure, here's what I know: Edwards is generating hostility from precisely the kinds of people who are likely to be most averse to real, systemic change. And that speaks very well for the former senator from North Carolina.

Posted by David Sirota

I see a bunch of people are with GreenVTster on this one.

In my view Obama is playing a very dangerous game here. He seems to have made the calculation that he can nail down the center under the call for 'inclusion' without getting too specific about what he means by 'change' and still have progressives stay on board out of sheer good will.

Well that may be too clever by half, too many people are asking questions about the implications of the people he is bringing on board as advisors.

Krugman has a lot of followers, people who think his criticisms are fundamentally rooted in spite or because of some hidden anti-Obama agenda have another think coming. If Obama had really opened enough room between himself and Hillary on Iraq then sure high information progressives break his way. But 66/67 doesn't cut it. For a lot of people the tie breaker is coming down to economics and Obama is delivering some mixed messages. I suspect that unless some of this is clarified that some of us are going to break from Edwards to Hillary. That is just the natural result of Obama's current attempt to outflank her on the right.

Because we want more out of our next President than just an inspiring narrative. And we know what we get with Hillary, it may not be inspiring, but you can bet good money it will at least be competent.

"Because we want more out of our next President than just an inspiring narrative. And we know what we get with Hillary, it may not be inspiring, but you can bet good money it will at least be competent."

Exactly. I think Ezra and many others don't understand that 2008's version of "I'm a uniter, not a divider" just won't cut it.

I expect John Edwards to stay in this race and to win this race.

But, given the hypothetical notion that he might drop out at some point (as you point out, very unlikely at this point), as an Edwards supporter, I WOULD GO NOWHERE. I cannot stress this enough. I will still vote for Edwards, even if I have to write him in.

People's notion of Barack Obama being a progressive are a fantasy. In some ways, he's to the right of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is actually my 2nd choice at this point, but there is a Grand Canyon of a gap between Edwards and her, because she herself is too right wing.

I'm a progressive. We've been waiting for a truly progressive Democratic candidate for a long time. I'm sticking with Edwards.

People's notion of Barack Obama being a progressive are a fantasy. In some ways, he's to the right of Hillary Clinton.

But ... but ... hope ... transcendence ... unity ...

Hmm. Don't hear much of that talk much anymore.

Paul Krugman:

"I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy."

Barack Obama pre-2004=progressive.

Barack Obama post 2005=centrist.

Change in Barack Obama's life post 2005=running for president.

If Edwards drops out, I'm going with Obama only because you can't have the pro-war record she has and make it through a Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton must be the shining lesson for every future ambitious congressperson wondering whether to vote "yes" on war.

Probably Clinton if I can't vote Edwards. For many of the reasons cited here, and for one other- I think she will get more done than Obama. Obama is the Clintons in 1992. 16 years later, we need someone who not only gets the fight but how to win. I don't want someone who will simply fight the GOP- I want someone who will , as someone else here wrote, rip out their spine and laugh a bone chilling laugh while doing it. I want the GOP scare of us. I want the next 30 years to be about them trying to figure out how to placate us, not us placating them. Love the unity message of Obama's, BUT we don't need unity- we need to get shit done. I am reminded of the basic lesson of history an exemplified by Reagan- to the victor goes the spoils of rewriting history how we were all unified about universal healthcare all a long. That aint going to happen with Obama. Not in him from what I can tell.

You Edwards people are crazy. The differences between Obama and Clinton on the domestic side are vanishingly small, even if you make the argument that Obama is to the right of Clinton at all (which strikes me as dicey and almost entirely dependent on ignoring Clinton's record on social policy and exaggerating the differences in healthcare), Obama is massively to be preferred on foreign policy.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Are Edwards people that pissed at Obama? Jesus Christ on the cross.

"I don't want someone who will simply fight the GOP- I want someone who will , as someone else here wrote, rip out their spine and laugh a bone chilling laugh while doing it."

What in Hillary's record could possibly give you reason to believe that she will do anything like you describe above?

I will vote for whoever moves left on domestic issues. At Thanksgiving, I would have definitely voted for Obama but then he started 'constructing conservative arguments against far-reaching reform proposals.'

It's who she is. Many of you are caught on 'records' when I am caught up on the personality of the candidate. THat tells me more about how they will govern than any record ever could. Because of this fact you will never understand my point. THe reality is that like or hate her, whether she will throw us under the bus or not, the fact that she is willing to atack attack attack is when compared to the limited choice of Obama or her, then a good thing that puts over the top over Obama for me. Accepted it or leave it and bring up more irrelevancies about her 'record' and I will be still left to the same conclusion. SHe fights. Obama doesn't. And by fight I don't mean she always fights in the way I want her too. But again the comparison is to Obama who doesn't fight at all.

I will vote Edwards if he is still around on Super Tuesday. I would probably swing to Obama if he drops out.
Clinton has been saying her experience is what separates her and I'll take her at her word. If she is anything like her husband than I would rather have someone who won't get anything done than have Clinton continue to sell the middle class down the river.

I am tired of hearing about people getting things done. The things Bush got done have torn our country apart. I don't think Clinton or Obama, with the policies they are running on, would take our country in the right direction. I would rather maintain the status quo than see either of these two push us further to the right.

Petey said:

Where did those Edwards sympathetic voters who didn't vote for Edwards go?

18% Clinton
13% Obama

More or less, I think that'd be how the Edwards vote would break down if he was out of the race.

I think that's the right place to start, but I think because Clinton lost Iowa and the polls being what they were, Edwards/Clinton voters were more likely to forsake Edwards for strategic purposes than Edwards/Obama voters were.

I'm for Edwards all the way, but if he's gone, I'm going for Obama. I'm tired of Rove and Hillary style "attack, attack, attack." Edwards attacks with substance, Obama attacks by bringing people along. Hillary just attacks. She won't get anything done, and she won't care.

Hillary has never been held accountable for voting for the war. This + her sense of entitlement + should make any former Edwards supporter think long and hard before voting for her.

She did not show leadership when it mattered most and simply jumped on the pro-war Bandwagon. Because she will not admitting her error in judgement the way Edwards did, she should be shown nothing but contempt.

I am planning to vote for Edwards in my February 5th primary. Why? Because my heart and head are with him. He has the most progressive policy proposals and he regularly bests the republican candidates in head to head match ups. He recently did much better than either Clinton or Obama against McCain. This will translate into longer coattails and a congressional majority that can actually enact legislation If you support him, please give to his campaign (see his website) on January 18th. If 100,000 supporters give an average of 70 dollars he can raise the 7,000,000 dollars the campaign is shooting for. I'm not going to think about who to support after Edwards until it is absolutely necessary to do so.

I support Edwards and my vote would definitely go to Obama if Edwards were to drop out. In fact, Hillary is the only Democrat I would consider NOT voting for in the general election, should she win the nomination. I guess I just don't hate my Republican friends enough to want to elect the Democrats' version of Bush -- the only candidate who could keep our nation as angry and our debates as childish and tribalistic as they've been for the last 16 years. I recognize that in terms of policy Hillary is probably (marginally) closer to Edwards, but I think the Clintons' extremely paranoid polarizing leadership style would be worse for the country than slower movement on the policies I favor.

I am graduate–degreed/over-educated “moderate” Independent, who happens to be a 45 yr. old gay male). I am socially moderate-to-liberal and economically conservative. For president, I have voted for a Democrat 4 times (i.e., Clinton twice, and once each for Gore and Kerry) and a Republican 3 times (Reagan twice and George H.W Bush once). I tend to lean toward the Democrats, mainly when their economic policies are conservative (e.g. Bill Clinton’s welfare overall).

Edwards was my first choice. However, after Hillary’s (slight) victory in NH, I have since switched to Obama (and sent his campaign $).

3 years after the Clinton presidential library opened in Little Rock, 3 years after Hillary told Larry King ‘everything's going to be available,’ 21 months after her documents became subject to the Freedom of Information Act, virtually nothing has been released about Hillary’s role in her 8 White House years. Plus, Bill wrote to the National Archives, the documents' keepers, specifically directing no marital communications be released. What are they hiding? (NOTE TO MEDIA: FOLLOW-UP).

Given Hillary’s incessant mantra that she has the experience, leadership abilities, and highly-honed bipartisan skills to be the next president, I would like to learn from her White House documents why, then, as a prominent player in the Clinton WH, she failed miserably in getting her health care reform plan implemented during the Clinton Administration back in the 1990s.

What is preventing The Clinton’s from producing Hillary’s documents?

Further:

Hillary's Record: For the Iraq war. For the Defense of Marriage Act. For Don't Ask Don't Tell."
For only a partial repeal of DOMA.

Obama's Record: Against the Iraq war. Against DOMA. For a Full Repeal of DOMA NOW.
Against DADT.

Hillary has never said her husband should not have signed DOMA. Actually, she said the contrary.
If she cannot publically stand up to Bill on something so basic when he was in office, why do so many people will do so when Bill inevitably advises her as president?

She also defended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell as a "necessary transition." But, The Clinton's DADT policy was never presented to Congress, the LGBT community or to the press as a "transitional policy."

At the time, DADT was a convenient and hastily passed law to extract Bill's new administration from a political mess of its own making.

From my perspective, why The Clinton’s are viewed as progressive has always confused me. I do not see it.

The betrayal of gay rights in the administration of Bill Clinton, and Bill's role in the 2004 election
advising Kerry to back state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage,
should convince anyone remotely thinking of backing Hillary this time that when push comes to shove
it is lesbians and gays that get pushed under the Clinton bus (and any other minority, when it’s politically expedient to do ).

I would guess many of you so-called progressives (who happen to be heterosexual) are OK with The Clinton’s track record, eh?

Hillary will do anything--- including banishing her husband, daughter, mother, and friends off the political stage--- to get elected.

Even if she does get the nomination, I will not vote for her. I would rather sit this election out.

a) This is a ridiculous question to pose. Fox News-esque. Edwards isn't dropping out.

b) If you are going to pose the question, at least you should be able to think through the various implications of Edwards being in or out of the race. It's not merely a question of who Edwards would endorse, or who his supporters would support. Think game theory. Think about the difference between a 3-way game of chicken and a 2-way game of chicken. And think about who benefits from a 2-way game of chicken, and why.

c) what I'm saying is do you think a truce would have been called if Edwards weren't still a viable candidate?

I've voted in the pesidential elections since 1968 and have never voted for a Republican but would, as a current Blue State Obama supporter, vote for John McCain over Ms. Clinton without flinching.

If Edwards gathers enough delegates to tip the scales between Obama and Clinton, maybe he angles for the DNC Chair position.

That certainly would help him find work for his staff.

"SHe fights. Obama doesn't. And by fight I don't mean she always fights in the way I want her too."

Well, I would rather win without "fighting" than lose with it. And the Fightin' Clintons are masters at getting beat on a policy level. The slide into quasi-fascism happened in large part on their watch, and often with their encouragement.

was this a monologue or a dialogue?
;)

I am so sick of the holier-than-thou tone of Edwards supporters.

If all you care about are domestic economic policies that are never going to pass the Senate, you should vote for John Edwards.

If all you want is red meat labor rhetoric, you should vote for John Edwards.

If all you want is a candidate attacking corporations in a way highly likely to damage them for the general election, you should vote for John Edwards.

If you want a candidate who at least gives the appearance of thinking about a few other issues, well, you should probably not vote for John Edwards.

Well Bob,

In Nevada the Barak "stay in Irag" Obama fan club doesn't want voters thinking at all:

Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama
Reported from Las Vegas, Nevada

There's nothing dainty about Las Vegas but things are getting rough.

Intimidation. Pledges demanded. People to vote for Obama or stay away from the caucus.

Call this union vs. the casino workers.

I just did an interview with a Culinary union member who was intimidated while eating lunch in the cafeteria at work. She didn't want to give her name, but she wanted to tell her story. The connection is rough, but her story tells the tale. It's below in a podcast:

Culinary Union pressures members to vote for Obama

Pamela over at Democratic Daily posted on a tip she received about the intimidation.

Jon Ralston talked about it this morning on MSNBC.

I just got off the phone with a unimpeachable source that there has been more than one confrontation between union reps and members.

This is not an indictment against unions, especially considering I joined my first union when I was in my teens, totaling four eventually. Unions are the backbone of the middle class. But in every good group there lies opportunistic cretins. Obama's supporters are obviously applying Chicago style politics in Sin City and they've got three days to get the job done.

Meanwhile, you've got big shots like John Kerry talking about "let the people vote" doing so within a stacked system titled towards the Culinary union, with many of their members who'd much rather vote for someone other than Obama being intimidated and forced to sign pledge cards. Some will fight back, but most will not. From what I'm hearing, this is getting ugly. It's the opposite side, with the story actually being "make the people vote for me."

UPDATE II: After you listen to the tape, think about this. How do the union members get out for the caucus? It's during working hours so they have to get permission to be let out of their shift. So they have to sign cards, as the woman on the tape said. But according to her, if you don't sign the pledge card specifically for Obama you can't go to the caucus. That's because the company won't have a record of your intention to caucus. It's the very definition of coercion.

Who is more trustworthy and honest? That is a good question. Especially since all sincerity, honesty and trustworthiness seem to fall by the wayside once elected into office.
This election is one of utmost importance. Lives are at stake here with the war in Iraq.

I support John Edwards.

IF he dropped out of the race, for some reason ... I'd hang back and see who came up as the Dem candidate. While I *prefer* Edwards, I believe either Barack or Hillary would be acceptable options in a Sans-Edwards field.

Then again, I'm registered Independent, so my opinion doesn't count much at this stage.

Still ... even the "worst" Dem candidate is better than any/all of the current GOP field.

We have a "good problem" in that we have to decide between three strong candidates.