Miracle on Ice: Edwards is Hillary's Firewall to February 5th
In one of politics' great paradoxes, success of Hillary Clinton's quest for the presidential nomination is tied directly to John Edwards's viability because most of his votes would go to Obama if Edwards were not in the race. This was confirmed by no less a political analyst than Bill Clinton. When told by Charlie Rose that Edwards's voters would go to Obama if Edwards were not in the race, Bill Clinton hemmed and hawed but did not counter Rose's assertion.
Edwards has assaulted Hillary's character, her fundraising and even questioned whether she would be the best person to promote women's issues. With Barack's rise, however, and his prodigious fundraising (without $10M from another campaign, and without the history and network of a former president), Edwards now is Hillary's firewall against being crushed in the first 4 primary contests prior to the February.
With Edwards in the race, Hillary can win or stay close in all the contests. If she had been crushed by Obama in those contests, as it might very well be if Edwards were not dividing that vote, Hillary might have had difficulty remaining viable on February 5th, despite the small number of actual delegates that would have been chosen before that date.
Although Bill Clinton took pains on Charlie Rose to undermine Barack for his lack of experience, he made no such comments about John Edwards whose public accomplishments are, well, hard to find. There is no reference, for example, on the Edwards website to any legislation for which he was responsible for that passed in his entire time in the Senate. (You can note in the text that he "authored" certain legislation, but nothing seems to have passed). Barack, even in a slightly shorter time in the Senate, already has a major legislative accomplishment, the most comprehensive rewrite of ethics rules in several decades. And, Barack spent years as a community organizer and as a member of the Illinois State Legislature.
Thus, Bill Clinton's focus on attacking Obama and ignoring Edwards on the issue of experience was clearly calculated. Clever lad.
As indicated in "Caucus Night Strategy in Iowa: The Uncounted Factor", the outcome in Iowa may depend on what actually happens within each precinct caucus. After the first vote, candidates with less than 15% in that precinct are given a chance to switch to remaining candidates with 15% or greater. Indeed, everyone at that point may change their vote, but only candidates with 15% or greater in the first round remain.
Thus, the opportunities for 'fixing' the outcome of the Iowa caucuses abound. Hillary's strategy to defeat Obama in the primaries now depends on Edwards, her harshest critic.
Contemplating the ice winters of the Iowa and New Hampshire winters, that must be what Bill Clinton really meant by the "miracle" that Hillary may win.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This story is a good example of the advantage of instant runoff voting. It is a system that is used in Austrailian House elections and elsewhere. And it prevents spoiler candidates from emerging in a multiperson race.
The way it works is that in addition to their first choice voters are allowed to mark their second, third, and so forth.
If no candidate wins a majority of first place votes the candidate with the least first place votes is dropped and those who voted for him have their second choice votes counted instead and so on.
So in this example Edwards would get dropped in a three way race as having the fewest first place votes. Most of Edwards's voters would have chosen Obama as a second choice so their votes would go to him and Obama would win the majority.
It is worth pointing out that Austrailians have high voter turnouts and a greater sense of satisfaction with their government as a whole. They also have healthy third parties.
(BTW the Iowa caucuses has sort of a form of this. If your candidate does not meet a certain threshold in the first vote they are dropped. Those that caucused for him can either go home or stay and support somebody else)
Got it! I have been saying all along that Edwards will win Iowa and will crushed thereafter by the Clintons. He is their darling for now until after January 03. He will help elect Hillary Clinton, precisely what he swears against. Edwards ascendancy will tame Obama. Hillary will be the nominee but she loose in the general election. Poor dems!
yeah, and if Obama hadn't decided to run, Edwards would be doing a lot better. thanks, Obama.
Given an opportunity to shoot themselves
in the foot, the Demos will opt to shoot both feet.
A vote for Edwards is a vote for Edwards.
When middle-class voters turn off the media hype and start really listening to what the candidates are saying, they will make the most intelligent choice: John Edwards. He is the only one who can fight and win against vested interests.
I worry about Obama and Edwards dividing the anti-Clinton vote. But I think that if she is successful in derailing Obama, the Obama votes will go to Edwards, not Hillary. I even think that if Obama loses Iowa, Edwards, not Clinton will win it. I suppose she's banking on the fact that Edwards has little money and will not be able to fight her down the line, but with polls showing that 50% of voters will not vote for her under any circumstance and that Edwards does the best against all Republican comers, I think she is wrong. Edwards has been the underdog all along, and we Americans love seeing an underdog come out top dog.
It all works out to be a money game now. The best and most experienced has not really been an issue that the media would like it to be and now with all of the money needed to be renning shows it's ugly head. When did we stop wanting the best and most experienced and allowed ourselves to be courted by only those with the biggest bankroll? Has it always been this way or did we turn a page and let the cost of dollars exceed what we know the reality to be? Bush got into office on the supremem courts back not our votes and yet he was elected the second time, or was he also "selected" the winner again by "funny" votes that came out of people who knew how to make the votes go his way? As long as experience is allowed to be the last thing someone is elected on to be president how much difference and change can happen? Who is the puppet and who is the master? Are we moving away from democracy and into where several families are the rullers adn we the slaves?
I don't suppose it may occur to you that Obama is Hillary's firewall, and without Obama in the race, people would flock to John Edwards?
Edwards has gotten a raw deal from the MSM - he's virtually being ignored (haircut stories notwithstanding) because HE is our true hero - the one the special interests fear.
John Edwards is the ONLY candidate who will stand up for the American people and fight for our rights. He's got my vote.
This logic might very well hold.
However, it might also be that if Edwards weren't in the race, some other figure like Richardson would gain greater prominence and be competing. Trying to speculate what a multiparty election would be like without a candidate running third in a large pack is difficult, a bit like 'It's a wonderful life'.
It is also crucial that the primaries in MI and FL, where Obama can't campaign without alienating the Democratic Party hierarchy, and the ENORMOUS number of states voting on Tsunami Tuesday ("TT" I call it) redound almost certainly to HRC's favor, and are much more significant than Edwards.
As much as I like John Edwards, the point in this blog is well taken. The majority of non-Clinton voters not currently for Obama would switch to him rather than Sen. Clinton if their first choice dropped out. Thus she needs those spoilers to stay in the race as long as possible to build momentum.
Something tells me this will be a very long primary season. At least until Super Tuesday, anything can happen.
I love John Edwards. But a vote for Edwards is a vote for Clinton.
Vote Obama for real change.
There is no firewall. It is an illusion slick Willie has created like the "Is" and "I" that keep dominating his sentences. Hillary's future is tied to the senate and that is good. We need as many democrats in the senate as possible. Bill will get use to President John Edwards and Vice-President Barack Obama re-build a great America.
You have that backwards--it's Obama and Hillary that are both occupying the same space (a weak one--both sitting Senators with weak records, and both having shown no willingness to use their vast media exposure to actually effect real change or show real leadership, and they're both proposing timid baby steps for health, for the economy, for everything, and they both are claiming a false historic "first" when there have been multiple female and African-American candidates
They must knock each other out for either to advance, and they know it.
Edwards is not just splitting the anti-Hillary vote, but appealing to all who want a fighter.
OK, let me get this straight. The Clinton campaign is the only one that's calculating. EVERY campaign, yes, even including Obamas, is calculating. It's a chess game and everyone knows it. If anybody wanted to talk about experience, Biden, dodd, and Richardson would be the front runners instead of the three with the least experience.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
