Edwards has to ask himself: ‘Should I stay or should I go now?’

I mentioned this briefly earlier, but the NYT had an interesting report today on the state of John Edwards’ campaign, and I suspect Edwards fans won’t find it at all encouraging.

Even his closest advisers are acknowledging that he no longer expects to come in higher than third place, in the state where he was born [South Carolina] and where his campaign had anticipated a strong showing.

And one thing was obvious from Mr. Edwards’s performance in Nevada: the already-murky rationale for continuing his campaign had suddenly become much less clear. […]

[H]is 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.

The advisor’s quote was oblique, but the meaning is pretty clear. Edwards will settle for third-place finishes, indefinitely, and keep picking up a few delegates here, a few delegates there. That will likely give him some relevance at the convention, should it remain a close contest. Edwards can also continue to “watch the dynamics,” which effectively means, “see if one of the other two stumbles badly.”

Is Edwards going to win the Democratic nomination? At this point, that seems unlikely. Should he drop out? That depends entirely on what Edwards hopes to achieve in the coming months.

Josh Marshall notes that talk about Edwards being “obligated” to drop out seems foolish.

…I can see supporters of Hillary or Obama wanting him to get out. That makes sense to me. But I don’t see any reason that Edwards is under any obligation to get out of the race as long as his supporters are willing to fund his campaign.

And in the case of Edwards specifically, I would say two things. First, as others have noted, his campaign has had an effect on this race out of proportion to his poll support in as much as he’s forced the two other leading candidates to grapple with issues they would not have otherwise. And in this race specifically, there is at least a chance we could come into the convention with neither candidate having a majority of the delegates, in which case he might play the kingmaker. Not likely, but not impossible.

Just to be clear, I don’t have any brief for Edwards campaign. I think it’s clear his support is falling off now as the race becomes more and more a Clinton/Obama race. The result in Nevada must have been a sobering wake-up call. But I don’t see where insider know-it-alls get off saying he’s under some sort of obligation to ‘do the right thing’ and pack it in.

Agreed. There’s simply no reason that compels Edwards to get out of the way. He doesn’t have a day job, and he’s doing what he wants to do. It may be embarrassing to Edwards personally to come up short time and again, but that hardly speaks to any obligations to stop trying.

But then there’s the next step in thinking this through. Edwards isn’t under an obligation to withdraw, but if he’s not going to get the nomination, and he doesn’t expect to win any of the remaining primaries/caucuses, he’ll have to consider his campaign in a strategic way.

I suggested a couple of weeks ago that Edwards appears to prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, so his future in the race may consider who benefits from his ongoing presence.

Chris Bowers made a compelling case last week that the longer Edwards stays in, the more it helps Obama, at least through Feb. 5, most notably in the South.

Obama is dominating Clinton among African-Americans nationwide, and even stronger in states where campaigning has actually taken place. Edwards draws very little of the African-American vote from Obama, but is competitive for white southern votes. This means that in states like South Carolina (Jan 26th) and Georgia (Feb 5th), Obama’s lead is largely dependent on Edwards staying in the campaign. In Alabama, which will take place on February 5th, Obama leads Clinton 36%-34%. However, that lead would be gone if the 9% of voters who support Edwards, most of whom are white, have to choose only between Clinton and Obama. While there are no recent polls out of other February 5th states, like Kansas and Missouri, given the strength of Edwards in those two states, I imagine the situation is very similar. Further, while Obama’s winning or losing in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee is not dependent on Edwards staying in the campaign, for exactly the same reason I cited in the previously mentioned states, Obama’s delegate totals from these other states will probably be better with Edwards in the campaign than with Edwards out of the campaign. In every case, Edwards will take a larger bite out of Clinton’s advantage among white voters than he will from Obama’s advantage among African-American voters. […]

Obama’s only chance in this campaign is if Edwards stays in the race through February 5th, and stays in the double-digits in just about every state through February 5th. If Obama can put together a string of victories from January 19th through February 5th, he might be able to compete with Clinton one on one. Right now, however, he can’t do that. So, if you are an Obama supporter pissed at Edwards for staying in the campaign, or frustrated that Edwards has maintained large support online, remember this: if Edwards drops out, or sees his poll numbers collapse before February 5th, this campaign is over.

Something to consider.

I think Bowers’ math is dangerously oversimplified. It assumes that voters are voting on a single criteria: black or white – and that Edwards’ supporters would move to other candidates solely along that axis.

That ignores gender dynamics — if Edwards is pulling more men than women, his dropping out may help Obama. It ignores the post-Iowa hypothesis that there are two “change” candidates who differ in style but both oppose HRC, in which case Edwards voters would otherwise be Obama voters. It ignores Edwards’ critique of Obama’s Reagan comments, which suggested perhaps there is a partisan versus “post-partisan” (or as I like to call it, realistic versus naive) split, which suggests Edwards voters may be Clinton voters.

Most of all, it ignores that all of these operate at once: everyone is both a gender and a race (and those identities play into individual decisions with differing weights), and everyone has a unique place on the “change” versus “experience” memes and on the “partisan” versus “post-partisan” memes and these positions may or may not be strongly linked to one’s gender or race.

Which is to say trying to do the game theory analysis of who Edwards helps or hurts is not likely to be much more accurate than drawing numbers out of a hat.

  • It’s not only waiting for Obama or Clinton to “stumble” — it’s the realization that very frequently buyers have second thoughts, given enough time.

    Many people are projecting onto Obama the candidate they want him to be — he has been built up by many people and as the campaign drags on some will think again. Edwards will still be there.

    Clinton came in as the “inevitable” nominee. I can see Bill’s statements/actions turning some people away from her.

    Is it likely that Edwards gets the nomination? No. But it’s plausible that by the time the convention rolls around, there is a sense of dissatisfaction with Obama and Clinton, and a small but growing protest vote for Edwards. Or not even a protest vote, people may come around belatedly, finally seeing through the media blackout. What if Edwards goes into the convention with 15% of the delegates, but a definite momentum towards him?

    There are no rules once we get to the convention. We’re so used to someone running the table and getting the magic number of delegates way in advance. If the convention is open, after the first few ballots, Obama and Clinton delegates may be looking for a compromise. And if they’re not going to draft Gore, well…..

    And finally, I think Edwards believes in what he’s doing and saying. Anything Can Happen between now and summer — he shouldn’t back out because it would be more convenient for the other candidates, or easier for the media to cover.

  • Let me add one set of thoughts to that…

    Have you seen Obama’s “I’m a Committed Christian” flyer in SC? Have you seen his “Be a Democrat for a Day” fliers in NV and CA? Have you heard him reference Ronald Reagan?**

    I suspect many who were enthusiastic about Obama before Iowa and are only now looking more closely might have second thoughts in the coming weeks.

    (** Yes, I know he was saying that Reagan was the point man for a major political realignment, but it’s the optics that resonate)

  • Well, as someone who supports Edwards, I would like him to stay in it for as long as possible, and for all the reasons mentioned. On the rare occasions when he actually gets some of the media attention, I do think he brings the conversation back to the issues and away from the more petty aspects of the campaign.

    What distresses me is that if Edwards is sincere in his positions against the special interests – and I believe he is – how does he throw his support to Clinton or Obama without looking like a total sellout?

    In truth, if it would come down to him being offered the #2 position, I see him as being able to have more of an effect in an Obama administration than in a Clinton administration, but who knows?

  • I’m a Clinton support who thinks that Edwards remaining in the race helps Obama. Recent polling suggests that, contrary to CW, Edwards’ supporters aren’t necessarily anti-Clinton.

    That said, I think that Edwards has every right to remain in the race if he so chooses. Further, there’s an argument to be made that he owes it to his supporters in the later states to give them the opportunity to cast their votes for him.

  • As I don’t think Obama or Clinton are good enough candidates–both seem too tepid and cautious to take the country where it needs it to go–I lament the possible loss of Edwards who has been effectively slaughtered by the SCLM blackout. I hope he stays in so that I can vote for him in New York and so that he keeps rattling O and C’s chains, forcing them to talk about and take positions that matter.

  • Never estimate the power of human vanity.
    I expect Edwards to be in this to the end.

    Bottom line:
    In every race track across America the prettiest horse always draws some bets.

    One more thing: The idea that Edwards is somehow driving the debate is fast becoming conventional liberal wisdom. I question its veracity.

  • Apart from cosmetics (female gender, mixed race — the kind of surface, TeeVee things which Americans unfortunately still pay far to much attention to) I don’t see either Hillary or Obama as much of a departure from the Bush-Clinton-Bush, military-industrial ping-pong game we’ve been playing since Reagan.

    The only real and realistic change would come if Edwards somehow becomes viable. I can’t see that happening while Americas remain as shallow as they are and while major corporations continue to control the media.

    It I were Edwards, I’d hang on as long as possible. Change (good or bad) almost always comes from those at the margins, whether they “win” anything or not.

  • Why would we want someone to give up? Stick with it Johnny. They’re not holding all those primaries for nothing.

  • Just a minority opinion, but I think Edwards probably helps Clinton as much as Obama by dropping out. His populist message is geared to working and lower middle class voters, a bloc that, according to exit polls in NH and Nevada, supports Hillary over Obama.

  • Ideally, Edwards instead of watching the dynamics would endorse Obama and campaign hard for him, since he doesn’t have another job at the moment….maybe in the role of shot-gun as Bill is to Hillary. Polling indicates that most of Edwards followers would choose Obama as their second -choice, rather than Hillary. After Hillary has wrapped up the nomination (perhaps in February), it will be too late to endorse either candidate, and surely he must side with Obama, otherwise his populist anti-Establishment run could not have been so genuine.

  • I hate that Edwards is a dead man walking. After his stunning NV collapse (I know, caucuses), I don’t know how he’ll muster 15% of the vote in SC.

    Edwards should be the nominee b/c he’s the main reason why the other two corporate-owned Dems even do anything remotely progressive (Clinton more so than Obama, policy-wise). Hell, even Obama stole his homeless vets remark (You would think he’d think of something on his own or credit Edwards).

  • lol Ed S…
    You just lost your guru status:

    Edwards voted for the war!
    He went with the pounding drums of the time…
    He lacked the strength of character to see the truth when seeing truth mattered most.
    She la la….

    No.
    There is only ONE candidate that said it was a stupid war afore it began.
    Only one that saw the truth ahead of the fact.

    Shit.
    Barack deserves everyone’s vote for that fact alone.
    Leaders are supposed to see the future…
    The skill is arguably what we pay them for.

  • I guess we’ll really see what Edwards is about with a decision about staying in or leaving the race. John was rattling the cages that this election was going to be about the economy with his “Two Americas” stump speeches way back in the day when Iraq was the only topic on the campaign trail. How true his vision was early on.

    If John is really trying to build a movement and nudge the Democratic party onto a more progressive path, he’ll stay in to keep momentum going for this movement. If it was just a nice campaign theme, I could see him cutting his losses sooner than later. My bet is that he really is trying to get the party to turn away from being Republican lite. Howard Dean lost four years ago but was still able to find a place in the party where he’s been able to foment change. It seems Edwards may be trying to do the same thing. Gunning for bridesmaid again just doesn’t look like a hot option for John.

  • Edwards will take a larger bite out of Clinton’s advantage among white voters….”

    Identity voting among the Democrats (to put a nice face on it). Again — depressing.

  • Electability, anyone?

    We are headed for another Republican president.

    The more I read articles, comments, the more saddened I become.
    I keep reading black, white, white, black. Obama will win SC because there are many black voters.
    What about: Obama will win because his ideas, solutions for what ails us are superior?
    Anyone who, in fact, scrutinizes his plans will find them lacking. Add his Reagan comments; it tells us a lot about the “real” Obama not the Obama people would like him to be. Paul Krugman’s explains clearly how the America Obama envisons is not the one his supporters seem to imagine.

    Black will vote black! How sad! Is that racist? White vote white! It is racist?
    We are talking on these terms on MLK day. Pathetic.

    Will America elect an Afro American for president? Well if SC will go for Obama because there are more black voters; it follows that Obama will become president only if there are more blacks than whites in the general population. Is this so?
    What is this election about?

  • God I hate this. I just donated to Edwards after having donated to Kucinich twice and I really couldn’t afford to do that. It’s like the last saving grace because neither Obama or Clinton are that progressive though Clinton is more so than Obama. Hell, Edwards wasn’t that progressive but he understood the fight ahead to take our nation back from the 5% that own 2/3rds of all the wealth. “Not for profit” single payer healthcare…out the window. Alternative energy sources and curbing our dependence on oil…out the window. A massive urgent effort to deal with global warming crisis…All of these issue means taking on the huge corporations profiteering on our misery and destroying our environment(national resources like forest and drinking water disappearing at a huge massive rate due to privatization.
    Obama and Clinton have already been bought by big money donations and will do nothing to change our system to public financing of campaigns, or for that matter stopping the telecoms from bribing congress to grant them amnesty for law breaking and making Bush’s illegal activities legal. The rule of law is not equal…the wealthy buy immunity. Bush has already gotten legislation passed that grants him and his administration immunity for torturing and killing prisoners. There will be very little change…just watch how the leadership fails in supporting Dodd’s filibuster and Obama and Clinton just cannot be bothered making a fuss over something as unimportant as the rule of law and or our constitutional rights. Necessity causes involvement but we need leadership to make changes and Obama and Clinton have just been approved by the money party. Will either go against the powers that be to get the money out of politics?

  • I would like Edwards to remain in the running. He has been ahead of the curve on all the important issues. The general collapse of the economy and how the middle class is taking up the a$$ will be the biggest issue in the general election. Again, Edwards is the only one who started out talking this issue, and was calling it what it is – class warfare and the end of the middle class.

    I don’t know if Edwards can be a contender, or a power broker, or just a distant third to the front runners. All I know is he is the only one I would vote for President right now.

  • ***ROTL???*** always beating the anti Hillary drum. No one voted for WAR. They voted for the authorization to use military force…if it became necessary and after (as Bush promised) all other tactics had been tried. Kucinich voted against it also…but it didn’t count because they were in the House not the senate. Obama voted to fund the war every single time it came up…how can you say you don’t support something and then vote over and over to fund it? That incident alone is not cause to vote for or against anyone. Ask yourself this question…are you aware of any negative thing about Obama?

  • Edwards is the progressive candidate. His candidacy has been torpedoed by the main stream media, who have chosen to ignore him to build up Clinton/Obama drama. The MSM torpedoed Dean last time, this time it’s John Edwards whose policies are intolerable to the powers that be.

  • Have you seen Obama’s “I’m a Committed Christian” flyer in SC? Have you seen his “Be a Democrat for a Day” fliers in NV and CA? Have you heard him reference Ronald Reagan? -zmulls

    I’m giving Obama a bit of leeway for the consistent reminders of his Christianity. He’s the only person in this race who has been called a Muslim, which we all know is an outright lie. I can understand the need to fight back against such anonymous slander, especially with the connotations associated with that particular religion in America today.

    As far as the “Democrat for a Day” fliers, I have no issue with them. As someone who would like to see the Democratic party grow, I understand that becoming a Democrat for life starts with just one day.

    You even disect your own argument concerning Obama’s Regan comment, so that needs no rebuttal.

    Some may be experiencing buyer’s remorse, but I’m not sure it is based on the three items you listed, and I don’t think that Obama is the only one losing or shifting support.

    The primaries/caucuses are just like polls: a snapshot. Political support is a living, breathing monster that’s always changing and I would wager that given a ‘redo’ almost no state would vote the same way twice.

    As far as Edwards, I think infotainment killed his chances ages ago. He just wasn’t a good story.

  • ***Odessa I*** No republican will win the WH this election. It would be like another vote for Bush. After the horrors of Bush and every single thing the republicans did or tried to do became a disaster. No health care plans, more war, tax cuts for the wealthy to be permanent, no immigration policy, voted down SCHIP the list goes on and on. We want the bums out not put more of them in. We need an alternative energy plan, and an urgent means of dealing with global warming. No one wants more of this disaster, this republican obstructionism. We want change from this republican disaster so no matter who becomes the nominee no republican will win the WH.
    Edwards and Kucinich were the only real change from dem agenda, the only real progressives in the race but all will have to lead the dem agenda. No dictators allowed.

  • Dear wise and knowledgeable people, Is there a competent estimate circulating anywhere as to the likely electoral votes that each Democratic candidate could garner vs. each likely Republican match-up, based on polling data? [SurveyUSA has done some match-ups].
    Whence comes all this certainty that no Republican will win this go-around? It’s not like the Democratic candidate gets to run against Bush.

  • I want Edwards to stay in til the bitter end. Didn’t he raise like 8 million $ on Friday? Today the European and Asian markets tunbled. Our markets were closed for the MLK holiday. Don’t you think that after last weeks sell off S&P and Dow are going to take a pretty big hit Tuesday? We’re in for a world of economic hurt at least a recession, maybe worse. Edward’s by staying in will keep those issues at the forefront. And he’s pulling the Overton Window to the left every day. He’s pretty much forcing Obama and Hillary into taking more progressive stances. The longer he can stay in the race, the longer and louder he gives voice to the issues that I care about. The millions of people like amd and Anne and several others here are concerned with. Hell, this is a primary people, vote your hearts and consciences. Electibility got us John Kerry in 04. Vote for what matters to you. Coalesce latter around the eventual winner. And please remember Freedom’s Watch is spending 250 Million Dollars in the general to defeat the eventual Dem candidate. So yea, a Republican can win this cycle.

    Frankly, I’ve got to wonder (tin-foil hat firmly on head) if some of the NH electronic voting machine irregularities, and the ones we saw on Sat in SC aren’t preamble to what will happen in Nov. The powers that be will then be able to say in all honesty that the exit polls there were also wrong, so for the third Presidential election in a row we are to completely discount exit polls. Need I remind you, the same polls we count on throughout the world to declare whether another country has had free and fair elections. But oddly enough they just can’t seem to work in this country.

  • Sebastian,

    Polls taken this early, when many voters are not paying much attention, are really not worth much. At best they give an indication of relative strength based on what voters currently know.

    Which is why I keep recommending supporting whoever you think would be the best president, don’t sweat the electability stuff.

  • You have my vote John!

    Best of luck and thanks for trying for us folks who work and have little t show for it (thanks to taxes) regardless of the outcome.

  • Which is why I keep recommending supporting whoever you think would be the best president, don’t sweat the electability stuff. -Horselover Fat

    I completely agree, and at the same time, I also think it is naive to assume an assured Democratic victory in November.

    The GOP is full of rats, and cornered rats fight, and they shouldn’t be underestimated.

  • sebastian –

    see http://www.electoral-vote.com

    they happen to have exactly this today (and for the next several days in different pairs)

    all Democrats and other progressives should take a good look: right now it projects a Republican win on electoral votes. there are a million caveats – not all states have polling so the default is how the state went in 2004, people arent focused on the general, there has been no comparative ads against the Repub for the general, etc.

    still, it should be a reminder to all that this November is hardly a foregone conclusion and that focusing our energies on the other side and on the general will be more important than the primary. there is much hard work to be done.

  • Lean, Edwards, Lean!

    He has enough support that his platform changes how the party’s platform is seen going into the convention. His points, his history, his plans, his accomplishments – that’s what people are voting for here.

    Staying in the race gives a solid blue-collar platform for voters to choose.

    So stay, Edwards!

    (I’d say the same of Kucinich, too)

  • Edwards needs to stay in the race.

    We all need to get LOUDER.

    Send cash.

    Put a sign in your yard. Hell, I live in GA and nobody has trampled it yet.

    The progressives need John and vice versa.

    We may not get the top o’the ticket, but we will have an effect.

    Then we start again.

  • The polls fluctuate with the day and the pollster, so there is not much that we can really take from them. Edwards can’t gain anything by quitting now, but there is still a realistic chance that he will be the kingmaker at the convention. It would be foolish for him to fold while this is a real prospect. Sure, if he gets hammered to under 15% in South Carolina, it doesn’t look good – but that really doesn’t seem likely at this point. There are even indications that he could catch Clinton – and that would bruise her campaign pretty badly. Plus, you can’t just calculate things in terms of advantage. I am not pro-Edwards myself, but I give him credit for believing in what he says. Why not fight on, and have a chance to influence the Democratic platform?

  • Comments are closed.